This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: binutils without a date is not handled properly without GNU sed
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- To: drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jakub at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 21:08:52 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: PATCH: binutils without a date is not handled properly without GNU sed
> For whatever unfortunate reason, the 18.104.22.168.xx releases were not
> test releases - anything with the fourth 0 and a fifth digit comes from
> HJ's "Linux binutils" and is considered a release.
> Just to clarify the record.
I'm not sure that clarifies the record. Unless I've misread the
binutils mail traffic over the years, according to the stated record
from FSF binutils primary developers *anything* with a >=90 in the
third digit is a test release; all of which are suppose to be quickly
upgraded upon the next real FSF release. I'd agree that it is not
worth arguing over whether the user population follows that instruction.
BTW, if HJ always included a date in his releases, as I think he does,
then my first posted patch was actually quite fine, if we study the
logic used... ...but I decided to build the most robust patch based
on the feedback I got instead of complaining (which I'm not doing
here; just further clarifying my position ;-).