On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 10:43, Mike Martin wrote:
--- Elliot Lee <sopwith(a)redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul
Mike Martin wrote:
> > This causes problems with packages that dont compile with 3.3
> Those packages need to be fixed.
yes - I know these packages should be fixed.
BUT - it does put the user trying to compile software in a
frustrating position especially when it relates to fairly important
packages like gstreamer.
Then it's the responsibility of the package maintainers to fix the
software, or even it's the freedom of the user to debug the package and
submit a fix for it. Or would you rather maintain two complete
toolchains only not to have to fix some packages? Because it'd work like
that: package A doesn't compile with gcc-3.3, so users compile it with
3.2.x which in turn leads to package A not getting fixed, ...
I know it can be frustrating for the end user/builder, even more so if
package maintainers don't cooperate (e.g. mplayer vs. gcc-2.96), but I
would want more convincing reasons for maintaining a second toolchain
(not that I'm directly involved).
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp(a)redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011