This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Release 2.12
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Subject: Re: Release 2.12
- From: "Christopher C. Chimelis" <chris at debian dot org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:09:13 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Yes, that part. And it's certainly not "most". Consider:
> - Debian uses them. That's Chris C.'s decision, and seems to be a
> reasonable one, overall.
I evaluate both the FSF releases and H.J.'s, no matter what. Mostly, I
use H.J.'s for two reasons: includes the hooks for Compaq demangler
support for their compiler releases for Alpha-Linux and also because
H.J.'s usually include newer fixes from CVS for platforms that Debian has
ports for (such as IA-64, HPPA, and MIPS{el}).
> Because critical bugs are found in the released versions and not fixed.
> GNU Libc, for instance, has an unpleasant habit of depending on
> binutils not-yet-released. The patches don't tend to be easily
> back-portable for those without a history of binutils experience. If
> we want to make new programs work, we need to move forward fairly
> frequently, and HJ offers the only way to do that.
Agreed on all points.
C