Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:18:10 -0800 (PST) From: David Ford X-Sender: david AT Midnight DOT Hacking DOT in DOT the DOT land DOT of DOT Kalifornia DOT com To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Kernel In-Reply-To: <19990311215311.G11562@cerebro.laendle> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Marc Lehmann wrote: > I don't, as 2.0 requires specific (but available) patches, and 2.2.3 is > not fixed to work (and it doesn't). Maybe it works with pgcc-1.1.1, but I > don't support this. strange. i've compiled 2.2.3 w/ and w/o several patches just fine with pgcc and egcs several times. > the point is that I don't want to hear bug reports regarding the kernel, > as my (official) position is that the kernel is buggy. I tried to be > cooperative with Linus (and his problems), but thats over once and for > all. > > Inofficially, I want the kernel to work with pgcc, of course, but until the > current faq maintainer does hard work and sorts out all these issues in the > faq I'll tell all people "don't do that!". imho, this is a clash of egos and does nothing to advance our collective works. -d -- This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows NT reboot! Do you remember how to -think- ? Do you remember how to experiment? Linux __ is an operating system that brings back the fun and adventure in computing. \/ for linux-kernel: please read linux/Documentation/* before posting problems