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: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- Cc: drow at mvista dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 02:21:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: PATCH: binutils without a date is not handled properly without GNU sed
- References: <20030516014932.GA29988@nevyn.them.org> <200305160208.h4G28qCE091108@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:08:52PM -0500, Loren James Rittle wrote:
> 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 ;-).
HJ started to add date at the time when this gcc version checking came up,
ie. any hjl's release without date doesn't have working hidden support
and any hjl's release with date does.
For the less than five digits releases the rule is >= 2.12.1 is ok.