sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: Source Mage Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:48:00 -0700
I agree totally, more to the point, the main argument i heard was to the
effect of "we shouldnt support these spells because the author needs
to use a 'modern' compiler" now that sounds fine, except for the part
where we dont have _that_ many users that we can take a stance like
that. Sure if we were as big as redhat or debian we might be able to
get away with that, but just tossing 25% of our spells is only going
to hurt our popularity, not to mention the number of spells we have,
which, oh yea isnt spectacular. Theres plenty of perfectly good software
out there that for some reason wont work with the new gcc, but thats
not a reason so simply not support it.
The word thats coming to mind here is facsism...sorry but when i read
the thread on this thats what i thought. Dont get me wrong, I think that
we should get everything over to gcc3 that we can, but simply removing
our support for things we cant get over is just plain facsist. We, as
well as the hacker community as a whole enjoys freedom, and I want to
be free to use non-gcc3 compliant software, if i have to wait an hour
for an older compiler, then fine, i'll do it.
Now i know we want to be a gcc3 only distribution, but simply wishing
it so by dropping spells isnt the way to do it, theres going to be some
latency involved. again gcc2 is totally optional, so its not hurting us to
keep those spells around. To put this in perspective its like removing all
the spells that play mp3s because mp3 doesnt fit our licensing scheme,
and unless theres a way we can make that piece of software work with
ogg files, its out. Well not exactly, but equally absurd if you ask me.
Andrew
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Julian v. Bock wrote:
> Hi
>
> IIRC we agreed to make gcc2 optional. Removing it completely (as
> suggested by the bug reports I got for my sections) does not sound
> like a good idea. Why should people not be able to use ddd? (I am
> definately not going to port it to the new libstdc++ ;)
>
> If gcc2 is completely optional it does not hurt anyone.
>
> Julian
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Grimoire mailing list
> SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
-
[SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Julian v. Bock, 10/14/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Andrew, 10/14/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Ryan Abrams, 10/14/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Andrew, 10/14/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Eric Sandall, 10/14/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells, Eric Schabell, 10/15/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Jonathan Evraire, 10/15/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells, Eric Schabell, 10/15/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Eric Sandall, 10/14/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Andrew, 10/14/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Ryan Abrams, 10/14/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells,
Andrew, 10/14/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.