Subject: Re: should we replace the shell?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: David S. Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/07/1994 17:57:19
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:10:55 -0500
From: "Charles M. Hannum" <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The existing GCC maintainers seem
to do an adequate job of `improving' GCC on the whole. When I'm being
bitten by a bug and I don't feel like it's being dealt with fast
enough, I usually fix it myself.
True, very true...
Ala the Linux
GCC team, perhaps it would be a good idea for a netbsd effort of a
similar style to emerge?
Why is that necessary or even a good idea? I absolutely will NOT
allow the GCC in our source tree to be updated every time a new
version is released by the FSF. Doing so would be completely
gratuitous, and would needlessly introduce bugs that we don't need.
We do not develop GCC. Other people do.
Of course that is a bad idea. The Linux-gcc maintainers refuse to
make a packaged release to the public until gcc is deemed stable
enough based upton various regression tests, etc. All I was
suggesting was that there are probably a couple avid netbsd users out
there (in fact I know there are) that hack gcc on a regular basis and
if their efforts were put togeather then all netbsd users could
David S. Miller