This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -

From: prj at po dot cwru dot edu (Paul Jarc)
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: shawn dot starr at rogers dot com, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:56:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid?
References: <20040105201611.UNAO23685.fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@localhost><87smiugkj0.fsf@codesourcery.com> <m38ykm5agw.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu><87k7453nd8.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>

"Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
>> This is deliberate, and complaints from users have not changed the
>> minds of the coreutils maintainers so far.
>
> I'm aware.  I will continue to tell people the truth.

I agree that this behavior is wrong, but I doubt it will help to tell
people to complain to bug-coreutils.  Jim Meyering has already heard
many complaints, and he apparently doesn't care.  I think it would be
more helpful to complain to RMS; he has authority to tell Jim to
change coreutils, and AFAIK he isn't already convinced that the
current behavior is good.

paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Zack Weinberg

References:
- Building binutils/gcc/glibc - (Was NPTL bind 9.2.3 issue)
  - From: shawn.starr
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Paul Jarc
- Re: Building binutils/gcc/glibc -
  - From: Zack Weinberg

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]