Just a thought that popped into my head
highos at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed May 8 10:15:54 PDT 2002
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 06:11:57PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> /PROPER/ /TESTING/. Yes, thats what I have been trying to talk about,
> and I dont mean one person saying 'yeah, that compiled'.
We never said we were not going todo a proper test. You implied this.
Yes, Gerard may seem like he's set in stone about upgradeing, however
that does not mean he is reckless in this, he is always considering the
implication, all he's implied so far is that he has had no problems.
Take that as you will.
> A regression test (can a LFS using 3.1 make an identical copy of itself)
> should be a minimum test.
Yes, that was one reason gcc3 was never even considered untill after gcc
3.0.4 was released. Because prior to that, it was nearly impossible
> I find that offensive.
Yes, I figured you would and many others would also. However, that does
not change the fact if you have AS. You have shown all the sympons of
it, and considering the nature of AS.. well, honestly, trying to change
your mind or even get you to listen to what we are saying is futile.
I did not mean dis-respect Ian, honestly. However you have posted over
50 posts on this list in the last two days. Take a break. We all need
one now and then.
Gcc 3.1 problably isn't going to be released for another two weeks
knowing the GCC Team. It will at the least take Gerard and the other
book editors a week to test it ourselves and get it into CVS. That
means we have a good _month_ to consider this, just to put it in CVS.
The next planned release for LFS is 4.0 which is a *long* way away. So
moving it into CVS is not a bad thing, after all CVS is suppose to be
considered "development" material.
*shrugs* I have allready said more then I wanted, don't expect a reply.
Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev