This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Testsuite ad RedHat 7
- To: Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>
- Subject: Re: Testsuite ad RedHat 7
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
- Date: 10 Oct 2000 10:12:05 -0700
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200010101603.SAA04655@quatramaran.ens.fr>
Marc Espie <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I think the Steering Committee made it pretty clear that shipping a 2.96
> e.g., *development* snapshot, with an official `release' is a very stupid
I didn't see that. All they said was that 2.96 was a series of
development snapshot, not a release, and that bugs in it should be
reported to whoever provided the snapshot (due to an unfortunate
mistake by Red Hat, not changing the bug reporting address, which will
be corrected in the first errata release).
I find all this rather amusing. The last Red Hat Linux compiler (for
the 6.x series) was also not a FSF release. As part of its
contracting and compiler support work, Red Hat has shipped dozens of
compilers this year, none of which were based on FSF releases, and has
been doing this for about a decade.
> By and large, if we needed proof that RedHat does not own gcc yet, we've
> got in a very major way.
I see. By that logic, we also have `proof' that VA Linux owns
[Does anyone remember HJ's 2.7.*.* GCC releases?]
- Geoffrey Keating <email@example.com>