From owner-freebsd-current Mon May 13 21:53:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA08463 for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 21:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.think.com (Mail1.Think.COM [131.239.33.245]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA08458 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 21:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Early-Bird-1.Think.COM by mail.think.com; Tue, 14 May 96 00:52:55 -0400 Received: from compound.Think.COM by Early-Bird.Think.COM; Tue, 14 May 96 00:52:53 EDT Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.Think.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA20613; Mon, 13 May 1996 23:53:17 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:53:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199605140453.XAA20613@compound.Think.COM> From: Tony Kimball To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: version of makeinfo in -current Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > This seems to be a recurring thing for me to mail the lists, I'm > > using FreeBSD as a development machine, and every piece of GNU software > > I use I have to install from the current release, its kind of annoying. > > Lots of us use FreeBSD as development systems. Not many are using c++, from what I can tell. It's not a big deal to build gcc 2.7.2. OTOH, it is a petty annoyance suffered by virtually every FBSD user -- certainly every single C++ user. I compiled the world using 2.7.2 -- it was trivial. gcc already builds with bmake. It is not a big deal to integrate it into the tree, therefore, unless one *makes* it a big deal by adding questionable constraints. > If all we did was follow the often senseless faddism that seems to > permeate the GNU world, all our time would be spent fiddling with tools, > and no real work would ever be done. This is just silly rhetoric. C++ is very different nowadays. Making a credible C++ compiler available *is* real work. 2.6.3 is significantly inferior. 2.8 will have bugs. If past history is any guide, gcc releases generally stabilize around x.x.2 or x.x.3. 2.8 is not an argument against 2.7.2, therefore.