Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-grimoire - Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells

sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Eric Sandall" <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]gcc2 spells
  • Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:49:49 -0700 (PDT)

>> No one said anything about throwing away 25% of the grimoire.
>> Obviously that is absurd.
>
> well all ive been seeing is "fix or drop" messages, fix often isnt
> something we have the time or energy for, thus leaving drop. the other
> statement was made was something to the effect of not supporting
> software that doesnt use a 'modern' compiler. sure we shouldnt go for a
> broken system in an effort to increase user base, but we are in NO
> position to be not supporting things in an effort to force authors to
> use a modern compiler. That argument is right out.
>
> if we are having a big z-gcc2 section or whatever, then thats a
> different matter, that is not what 'dropping the spell' usually means.
> if i read drop in all the appropriate places as "move to this other
> section for spells that cant use gcc3", then i have no qualms.
>
> i also agree with you on almost everything else. USEGCC2 is a hack, and
> obviously its a good idea to try and get everything onto gcc3
> that we can, but my concern was that a number of spells simply arent
> going to make the cut, and those spells shouldnt just be dropped out of
> support. from what ive gathered not much has gone on in the way of
> making a section for these and the bugs are all listed as fix or drop,
> and im not about to stand behind a choice to drop a large portion of our
> grimoire simply because the author didnt know that something would
> change in gcc3 and wrote their code using all the functionality of gcc2.
>
>
> obviously i either missed something, or it just went unsaid what your
> plans were, and im fine with those.
>
> thats all.
>
> <jest>
> now if you want to invoke godwins law ;) sure go for it, but i never
> compared any one person or group to fascists (nor did i say hitler or
> nazi), i just said that this fix or drop way of doing things is
> strikingly fascist, fascism is typically characterised as reactionary
> and chauvanistic.
>
> reactionary is something to the effect of:"makes policy based upon
> current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems"
>
> and chauvanistic is something to the effect of:"varying rights based
> upon superficial characteristics"
>
> why just dropping a spell completly based on it using an older compiler
> is fascist is left as an exercise to the reader.
> </jest>
>
> anyways, so long as we can keep spells around that work fine with gcc2,
> but not necessarily in the standard system, im happy.
>
> sorry for the unintended flamage, i guess i came off a lot more pissed
> off then i really was.

<snip>

Okay, here's where a good use of our poll system on either
http://news.sourcemage.org/ or http://www.grimoire-gurus.org/ . :) I say
we have a poll on whether to leave the gcc2-dependant spells in the
sections they already are, or to move them to the proposed z-gcc2 section,
which I volunteer to create and maintain (with help, hopefully ;)) in CVS
or P4, whichever the majority wants there as well.

I almost thought of mentioning an option to drop the spells, but I agree
with Andrew that this is really not an option, and I agree for all the
same reasons.

-One of Four
a.k.a. sandalle

--
PGP Key 0x5C8D199A5A317214
Fingerprint=14C0 C194 163E 57CB 0F1B ED87 5C8D 199A 5A31 7214

Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux
Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org
http://www.sandall.us/~sandalle | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page