Re: gcc 2.96: System headers get fixed inadvertently for i386-linux-gnu

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Richard Kenner wrote:

> I don't see the difference between proprietary and open systems here.
> People will still want to be able to just install one component (in
> this case GCC) and expect it to work.  Don't confuse "proprietary"

 Sure.  This is how it worked till 2.96.  Now whenever I update glibc
(from x.y.z to x.y.z+1) or any library gcc has private headers of I must
upgrade gcc as well.  Hardly a gain for me, actually. 

> with "commercial": Linux is just as commercial as Solaris nowadays and
> the same considerations about being able to cleanly install a new
> package applies to both.

 Writing "proprietary" I meant "no easy way to fix sources".  Whether it's
commercial or not is irrelevant here, although it seems there are now
less commercial programs for which a source license is available than
there used to be before.

 Anyway I consider the case closed.  As I have already written, I'll just
sit an wait to see how the situation evolves -- whether this change proves
to be a gain or not.  I'll just use private patches -- they are so tiny I
can't see any real trouble for a while. 

 BTW, I thought on this issue a little and I now understand your decision
and why it only applies to i[34567]86-*-linux-gnu* systems.  These systems
(as opposed to other linux-gnu* ones) are now widely used by people who
have little clue about how system internals work.  You must be receiving a
large number of bogus bug reports due to broken libraries now.  Given that
I see what the reason is.  But why wouldn't you write it explicitly?

-- 
+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+        e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available        +