Re: FreeBSD 4.0

[Marc Espie <espie AT quatramaran.ens.fr>]

In article <199909162013.NAA10276@kankakee.wrs.com> you write:
>You are in the exact same case.  You want to put things that are only
>relevant to your one build, but screw all the other folks in the world.

I don't want to screw anybody else.
I want to make sure stuff works, possibly both ways.

>gcc doesn't cater to people like you.  It caters to all the other
>folks that want to install a new compiler in a non-conflicting way on
>their system.
>
>Once you readjust your philosophy around to match the gcc philosophy,
>you will see why what law says is true.
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:41:15 +0200
>> From: Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr>
>
>> I concur that, if the end user want to fiddle with a newer gcc snapshot,
>> USER_H is in the way.
>
>See, this is wrong.  Use the phrase, if the end user wants to fiddle
>with a newer gcc snapshot, everything will always just work.  If the
>distribution packager wants to build up a distribution, they will have
>to fiddle with USER_H...

Sigh. I wonder if I speak martian of something sometimes...
See, this is exactly what I mean.
I do understand that the end user  may want to install a newer compiler
on an older OpenBSD.  I have absolutely no problem with this.
*of course* he shouldn't get fucked by whatever we want to do with the
compiler.

In fact, one point of my getting involved with gcc was to make sure
what we had in tree matches *precisely* the current development tree,
apart from a few, well-documented patches *and* making the patches 
available, so that Joe User gets a choice.

What I mean is that we want to keep upgrading our system headers.
We want them to work, we want the current system to match what gcc
needs.