Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:02:09 +0700
From:      Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net>
To:        Alexander Kabaev <kan@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: HEADS-UP: GCC 3.4.2 snapshot import is imminent
Message-ID:  <20040730090209.GA91408@samodelkin.net>
In-Reply-To: <20040730054522.GA57090@freefall.freebsd.org>
References:  <20040727021820.GA46021@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040727102021.GA73927@samodelkin.net> <20040729021919.GA47196@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040730035800.GA21238@regency.nsu.ru> <20040730040741.GA42165@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040730053019.GA89254@samodelkin.net> <20040730054522.GA57090@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi!

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 05:45:22AM +0000, Alexander Kabaev wrote:

> > There is a trivial patch for one .info file which adds all the
> > FreeBSD-specific options to gcc.1.
> 
> Which I assume haven't changed a bit since Oct 2003?

You (FreeBSD gcc maintainer) said that you are not interested in this patch.
I did not update it since that time.

> > There is a trivial patch for bmake glue that installs gcc.1 from
> > gcc distribution (src/contrib/gcc/doc/gcc.1)
> > instead of gcc 2.95.x manual (src/contrib/gcc/gcc.1)
> > that is currently being installed.
> > 
> > Both exist since Oct 2003.
> 
> In their worthless state, yes. Hint: cvs log on contrib/gcc/gcc.1.
> As I said, I am perfectly fine with someone taking over gcc man page
> maintenance.

> This will have to be done outside of GCC tree in contrib though.

^^^^ This is the first constructive reply from you since several people
approached me asking why gcc.1 in 5.x is man page for 2.95.x.
I will take this route. No problems!

> The task is not as trivial as some might mistakenly believe.
>
> This is the last message on this subject I am willing to write.

I never thought that maintaining gcc is trivial.
I worked with previous gcc maintainers in the past.
I HIGHLY appreciate your commitment.
But I do not think that it is acceptable to pretend that the problem does not
exist or to bash every attempt to make things better.

/fjoe



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040730090209.GA91408>