> Why is it that I would have to reach outside of a distro to make
> customization of the default configuration work? Isn't the whole point
> of a distro is to offer a particular perspective on how the base system
> should be assembled and from that starting point we can make it suit our
> own particular needs? If the distro is nothing more than a bunch of
> files + an installer, then how is that going to serve anyone?
> Not to be offensive, but, what is this, a game of "trivial persuit"?!
I agree with you that it's frustrating when a distro doesn't work for you
out of the box. RedHat should have documented kgcc in large, friendly
letters on the front page of their website.
The problem as I see it is this. Software developers want the latest
compilers. For instance, I have some C++ that really does need gcc 2.95.x
to compile. But the kernel, being to some extent legacy code now,
requires egcs 1.1.1. So RedHat made a compromise. Use a new compiler
whenver the user runs gcc, but include the legacy compiler as kgcc for the
special case of compiling the kernel.
Although I agree that including two compilers was unavoidable in this
situation, I disagree with RedHat's decision to use a non-release gcc
rather than an official gcc release.
Just part of the fun of code getting old and the compilers moving on.
Hopefully in the near future the kernel will be gcc 2.95/3.0 compliant and
we won't need the two compilers.
--- Geoffrey Wossum firstname.lastname@example.org Project AKO - http://rover1.uta.edu/~ako Internet Imperialists - http://inetimperial.sourceforge.net
This message resent by the email@example.com list server http://www.uClinux.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 00:01:43 EST