This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: making a 2.95.4 release

On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 06:10:24PM +0000, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Hello Jeff,
> > 
> > As GCC 2.95 release engineer, would you please create a 2.95.4 release
> > from the 'gcc-2_95-branch'?  Considering the maturity of the branch, I
> > cannot imagine this would take much more than creating the tarballs and
> > putting them on
> It would be nice if the problems the 2.95 branch has with compiling glibc
> could be fixed - that might motivate me to have another go at a release.
> There's also at least one bug report about miscompilations with 2.95.x.
> > For various reason people are still downloading and using 2.95.3 to this
> > day.  GCC 3.x is also inappropriate for some of the BSD releases due to
> > the major changes between 2.95->3.0.  Just this week someone else was
> > asking for a 2.95.4 release.
> Why can't you just use the current sources on the branch for BSD?
> What about gcc 3.1 which is about to be released?

Why couldn't Red Hat do that in the EGCS 1.0 days?
Why didn't you tell the people trying to build glibc that?
Because switching FreeBSD 4.6 from GCC 2.95 to 3.x is totally
unreasonable.  Same for switching for OpenBSD 3.1.  Same for Debian I
guess (why aren't they using 3.0)?
Does Red Hat and glibc carry more stock than Debian, FreeBSD, NetBSD,
OpenBSD combined?  We had a bug fix in 2.95.3_test3, but it was removed
for the 2.95.3 release because of HP-UX issues (I think *BSD outnumbers
the number of people using GCC on HP-UX).  Well now we have a fix
committed in the tree and we can't get a release made with it?

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]