This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Gcc installation problem
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: Long Fei <lfei at ecn dot purdue dot edu>
- Cc: "'Dan Kegel'" <dank at kegel dot com>, "'Mike Stump'" <mrs at apple dot com>, "'GCC Mailing List'" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:21:15 -0700
- Subject: Re: Gcc installation problem
- References: <3F412A9F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <000d01c365d3$08aebcc0$2c7b2e80@ee271dpc5>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:52:35PM -0500, Long Fei wrote:
> Personally I think specifying "RH" won't make the situation any better.
> Since GNU always call Linux distributions GNU/Linux, it naturally should
> be GNU/gcc.
The arguments about Red Hat's "2.96" should be put behind us. Yes, the
SC asked Red Hat to use "2.96-RH" to help clarify that it wasn't a GNU
release, so bug reports would go to the right place. But there have
been many releases, both of GCC and of Red Hat, since then, and now
Red Hat uses a 3.2-based compiler. Surely there's something more current
that we can argue about.