[rescue] [OT?] Linux on a SS2

Phil Stracchino alaric at caerllewys.net
Sat Feb 14 22:44:10 CST 2004

On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 08:17:00PM -0600, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Carl R. Friend wrote:
> > > with a sour taste for Redhat ever since.  "GCC 2.96" didn't help with
> > > that at all.
> >
> >    Well, I'm not averse to bootstrapping gcc on architectures that
> > it's supported on (Hell, I did it on ULTRIX 4.3) so taht doesn't
> > scare me in the least.
> I was referring to the CVS snapshot of GCC that RedHat included with v7
> that they marked "GCC 2.96".  It was horribly-broken, not release-quality,
> and not ABI-compatible with anything else.  It resulted in a firestorm
> of hate mail and bugreports to the FSF, who responded with this:
>    http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
> Yeah, building GCC is not terribly painful (in general), but when the OS
> vendor ships a broken compiler with no upgrade path in sight, eh, life's
> rough.

All I can say is, don't blame Cygnus.  That page pretty much sums it up.
We were the official maintainers of gcc at the time, and we TOLD Red Hat
over and over that 2.96 was an internal preproduction snapshot that was
not production-ready for ANY platform, but would they listen?  What do
*you* think?  It wouldn't even compile the Linux kernel (which is why
Red Hat 7 had to include gcc-2.95.3 as well *anyway*, as kgcc).

(I heard later on, after Red Hat axed my department, that the FSF took
gcc maintainership away from Red Hat because they fucked around with it
so much.  I can't vouch for the correctness of this.)

 .*********  Fight Back!  It may not be just YOUR life at risk.  *********.
 : phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
 : alaric at caerllewys.net|alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net|alaric at novylen.net  :
 :   2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold)   :
 :    Linux Now!   ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft.    :

More information about the rescue mailing list