Eric S. Hvozda writes:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 1995 10:54:43 +0200 (DFT)  Daniel Silen wrote:
> > Is there a reason why NetBSD uses such old gnu tools?
> > Example:
> > gcc =3D 2.4.5 , current gnu-version is 2.7.0
> > 
> > Why? Incompability-reasons, ideological-reasons, or simply lazyness? ( :-) =
> 
> Stability of tools is one less variable when kernels go berszerk.  There was
> also discussion of this just within the last month if memory
> serves.  It's out there in the archives somewhere.
> 

  Exactly.  Does it not make sense then to integrate bug fixes into the
current release of gcc so that it compiles out of the box?  The compiler
is going to have to be updated at some point, I think making the odd
per-release bug fix would be easier than doing a major upgrade every few
years. 


> Also there is a good explanation why core doesn't like to bring things 
> under GPL into the tree unless they really have to...
> 
> See www.netbsd.org and fish around, saw it in there just the other day...
> 

  The current GNU tools are under the same GPL as the old ones.  The GPL
is not very restrictive in this case since:

 1) NetBSD is already distributed as source satisfying the most annoying
    aspect of the GPL.
    
 2) Programs created with the GNU tools are not limited by the license unless
    they include GPL'd code, I don't think any of the base NetBSD libraries
    contain such code so you can distribute them in any form you like.


  I'm not trying to bash the core team, I'm just frustrated that I have to
maintain two versions of gcc with limited disk space.  I realize that gcc
often adds many new bugs in new releases, but I don't see why 2.5.8, 2.6.3
or 2.7.0, all of which were said to be very stable releases were not
integrated.  I'm not offering to do the work, I don't have the
knowledge/experience, I'm just venting... it's a free net (for the
immediate future anyway) I can do that :)

Kerry