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 11:49:00AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 07:21:16PM +0000, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 18:18, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > Does Red Hat and glibc carry more stock than Debian, FreeBSD, NetBSD,
> > > OpenBSD combined?  
> > 
> > To be fair, from Debian's point of view a 2.95.4 release would make
> > virtually no practical difference.  The source tarball we currently use
> > is essentially a snapshot from the top of the 2.95 branch in CVS, and we
> > apply a whole pile of Debian-specific patches anyway, so it makes no
> > real odds to us whether it's annointed as an FSF release or not.
> Debian should probably not be calling its GCC "2.95.4" as that confuses
> things as Red Hat's "2.96" did.  Having an offical 2.95.4 release would
> legitimize the version of Debian GCC.

drow@nevyn:~% gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs
gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)

We don't feel any need to "legitimize" it - we still would almost
certainly be applying patches to a new branch release.

Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

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