GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi,

"H . J . Lu" wrote:

> But most of the gcc
> developers still believe they can pass the ball to the system vendors
> all together.

That's a very interesting issue, in general, I mean. I think it will
surface again when Al Stevens will report about gcc3.0 on DrDobb's...

In these days I see kind of a tension between the system-vendors centric
position (only pre-built rpms managed by smart dependency managers) and
what I would call the "hacker" position typical of the first days of the
free OSs and GNU. It seems not at all obvious anymore in these days that
an user is *really* supposed to do the canonical configure, make, make
install... So every possible confusion may arise...

I'm not sure that your position will win in the long run: relying on
system-vendors may have some benefits: the system vendors have something
to make money with, the developers have more time for the "technical"
;-) issues...

What do you think about this?

P.