This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 18:40:57 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010630162231.A18131@lucon.org> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106301526270.318-100000@straylight.int.sonicity.com> <20010701120217.F737@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <3B4056BC.987A6D4E@unitus.it> <20010702090142.D25410@lucon.org> <3B409BF5.3DFBF71B@unitus.it> <20010702091918.E25410@lucon.org>
Hi,
"H . J . Lu" wrote:
> But most of the gcc
> developers still believe they can pass the ball to the system vendors
> all together.
That's a very interesting issue, in general, I mean. I think it will surface again when Al
Stevens will report about gcc3.0 on DrDobb's...
In these days I see kind of a tension between the system-vendors centric position (only
pre-built rpms managed by smart dependency managers) and what I would call the "hacker"
position typical of the first days of the free OSs and GNU. It seems not at all obvious
anymore in these days that an user is *really* supposed to do the canonical configure,
make, make install... So every possible confusion may arise...
I'm not sure that your position will win in the long run: relying on system-vendors may
have some benefits: the system vendors have something to make money with, the developers
have more time for the "technical" ;-) issues...
What do you think about this?
P.