i wholly agree, theres no point in removing it and then fighting inertia
to get it put back in.=20

besides, dont these people remember their roots? this stuff _started_ on
VAX back in the 80s! :-)=20

isildur

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-06-21 18:56:55 -0400, Gregg C Levine <hansolofalcon@worldnet=
=2Eatt.net>
> wrote in message <000901c457e3$0f35e700$6401a8c0@who5>:
>=20
> > with here. It also turns out I've caused a hew and cry on this subject
> > from the perspective of one of the folks on the Linux-VAX list. (To
> > which I subscribe.) There I was given mention.
>=20
> Of course:) From my perspective, it's harder to first let the FSF guys
> rip off all VAX bits and then (at some later time) add a VAX target
> again. To me, it seems easier to "just" update the target, rather than
> submitting it as a new target once again.
>=20
> However, I think I can't personally do the gcc hacking; I've put most of
> the patches we had for 2.95.2 into a (local) gcc-HEAD tree, but I'm
> quite stuck with that. I'm missing so much knowledge about gcc... glibc
> looks like being (in comparison) quite easy to hack, but that doesn't
> help me if I don't have a current GCC to compile glibc with...
>=20
> We'd maybe have some IRC session to have a discussion about the vax-*
> targets.
>=20
> MfG, JBG
>=20
> --=20
>    Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481
>    "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Kr=
ieg
>     fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier B=FCrger" | im Internet! |   im I=
rak!
>    ret =3D do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | =
TCPA));
>=20