This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at stanford dot edu>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:41:06 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Organization: Università della Tuscia, Viterbo, ITALY
- References: <20010630110153.C432@stanford.edu>
- Reply-To: pcarlini at unitus dot it
Hi,
> We have had this flame war several times already: see threads at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00591.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00957.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00485.html
>
> Everyone please read all of those messages before continuing this
> incarnation of the flame war.
Thank you very much for the pointers, which I briefly read at the time but could
not retrieve when I posted my original message.
Now, thanks to those messages and H.J. Lu reply I see more clearly the "real"
issues at stake and I'm beginning to understand why it is difficult to arrive at
a solution satisfying everyone. No flame wars anymore.
But a solution is *needed*. Do you agree with me?
Really, don't you believe that the users may consider *absurd* that *no* released
gcc (neither 2.95.x, neither 3.0 !!) is fully qualified to build glibc2.2.x ?!?
Perhaps I'm reasoning in this way because I'm using Linux/GNU systems since many
years and I do not rely on ready-to-use, pre-built distributions. I still believe
in these days that a complete GPL Unix-like system should be builtable from
scratch, that is downloading and compiling the software at your computer, without
relying on someone else applying "esoteric" patches to make the different parts
fit together.
No. It's time for you, the developers, to discuss technical solutions to the
problem.
Thanks again for your attention,
Paolo.