On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:55:46PM -0500, Bob Tanner wrote: > Can someone fill me in on the whole gcc + redhat mess? > > Long story why I got into this stuff. Been on irc and the mailing list for a > specific problem. > > Anyway "people" say 2.96 is a non-existent version of gcc, which from what I can > tell is true. Looks like redhat pulled this out of the butt. Anyone confirm or > deny this? RedHat pulled it out of CVS and called it 2.96 to denote that it wasn't *Gasp* 2.95. > > Which leads to WHY did redhat do this? I suggest this url for a detailed explanation: http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html > > "People" says 2.96 is crap/buggy/junk/useless/etc, but I've not run into any > problem, even the xine which says 2.96 WON'T work. > These "people" are usually $otherdist zealots, mplayer claims it won't work at all either, and has a specific ./configure check for it, it works fine. Of course, it turned out to be a bug in mplayer having to do with Intel asm. > "People" say to upgrade to 3.1, -other- people say 3.1 is crap, go to 3.2, still > others say there is nothing wrong with 2.96. I say I'm just confused. My typical response to this is 'I'm happy with what I have for now, because it works fine', of course, if you are having problems, trying gcc 3.1/3.2 might be worth it. > > Anyone care to enlighten me? Consider yourself enlightened, please spread the word =) > > > -- > Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 > http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 > http://www.tcwug.org, Minnesota, Wireless | Coding isn't a crime. ^- yet. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203