Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:47:12 -0700 From: Allen Campbell <allenc@verinet.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Musings about tracking FreeBSD... Message-ID: <36F75510.10809BA8@verinet.com> References: <44883.922159934@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Waking up and coming back to the real world for a moment here, I can > say that some of this packaging technology exists now but is still in > a very green state and requires egcs to compile due to its more > advanced use of C++ than 2.7.2.x can handle. It also requires > Turbovision and/or Qt as interface back-end libraries and both need to > be egcs compiled to work properly. All of this makes it a bit hard to > release it for general play-time and it's really also not quite to the > state of being ready for peer-review yet in any case, so that's why > it's not been more widely released. Even with the work that's been > done to date and the work we're immediately contemplating, however, > it's still a pale fraction of the "wish list reality" I depict above. > That's where I'd really like to *get* to, not where I expect to get to > right away (unless a lot of people become suddenly infected with the > idea and start coding like possessed maniacs, I guess). :) Release it and let's see. I am really pleased to see these tools (EGCS, QT and TV) being used despite the difficulty it poses for distribution. A little risk in the form of a break with convention is warranted and a great deal could be achieved. I would guess you have endured some criticism on this point although I have no way to know. I think the payoff will be worth it; contemporary tools will make a difference, if only to inspire those who would care to put them to use. There are several dozen rather productive 'possessed maniacs' over at kde.org. I often wonder how much of this is due to QT. I know this; QT and EGCS (w/STL) are what keep me up late. I can see TurboVision doing that too :) Release it and let's see. What thought has gone into the next 'official' compiler? I would like to think the GCC-2.8.x branch could be skipped. By all accounts, EGCS-1.1.x is at least as stable, and considerably farther along the standards track. -- Allen Campbell | Lurking at the bottom of the allenc@verinet.com | gravity well, getting old. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36F75510.10809BA8>