This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: making a 2.95.4 release
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 07:46:36PM +0000, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > Why couldn't Red Hat do that in the EGCS 1.0 days?
>
> Do what, exactly?
Why couldn't Red Hat use EGCS 1.0.2 + patches. Instead EGCS 1.0.3 as
released for Red Hat's needs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/egcs-1.0/egcs-1.0.3.html
EGCS 1.0.3 is a minor update to the EGCS 1.0.2 compiler to fix a few
problems reported by Red Hat for builds of Red Hat 5.1.
> > Does Red Hat and glibc carry more stock than Debian, FreeBSD, NetBSD,
> > OpenBSD combined?
>
> Not sure how Red Hat factors into the equation, since our OS people are
> no longer using 2.95.x.
See above. It factors in because a need of Red Hat was the reason for a
release from what was suppose to be a "dead" branch.
> I thought you are shipping a separate set of gcc sources for BSD - so
> where's the problem with just using code from the branch for that? I fail
> to see how making it an official release would be of any help.
Ok, but then I will call it 2.95.4 and I don't want any crap for using a
non-"real" version number. Also I will have to move our port to using
CVS for distfile fetching as when we switch to 3.1, about 1/2 of the 6000
3rd party apps will not compile with 3.1. Thus they will have to depend
our our gcc295 port.
Making a 2.95.4 release also helps the other people out there that are
still using 2.95.3 get a few bug fixes.
> There needs to be more testing to make
> sure there are no regressions, and it could be difficult to find the
> volunteers for that with 3.1 around the corner. And if we make another
> official release, I simply think it would be nice to fix more problems
> first.
Fixing more problems would be nice, but will people make any more commits
to the 2.95 branch?
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)