[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de: Re: RFD : libg++/gcc/egcs upgrades needed for libc6 (READ ME)]

Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch> writes:

> >>>>> "Goswin" == Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> However, this comment from Goswin seriously upset me, so I think I

Sorry to upset you there.

> better make things a bit clear, as I consider this a personal attack
> behind my bag. I am sorry if it may appear as noise for those of you who
> are not really interested in what is going on for the m68k port, please
> just ignore it.
> Goswin> Could it be that some of Jes's personal opinion is expressed in
> Goswin> his statement? I'm currently working on Eagle Linux m68k, which
> Goswin> is a competition for Jes with his redhat and the air has been
> Goswin> quite hot between us for several reasons.
> First of all, this is utter bull shit and just shows that you seem to be
> totally clueless as to is going on on the Linux/m68k mailinglist.
> I did the unofficial Red Hat port because:

I never talked for or against your Red Hat port, I think its a great
job of yours, just like I said further down.

> a) I like the way Red Hat does things and I would like to be able to run
> the Red Hat distribution on my machine. I do not advocate against
> Debian.

Nobody said so.

> b) I wanted to put out a Linux/m68k distribution for people to start use
> - Linux/m68k has been lacking an easy-to-install distribution for new
> and old users for a very long time. I am aware of the Debian efforts
> which has been going on for a long time, but in my personal oppinion it
> has been taking too long and I felt we needed something now. It is not
> meant as any sort of criticism, I realise how much work it requires and
> that they are lacking man-power. I exchange patches with the Debian/m68k
> guys and consider most of them as good friends.

Just the same reasons Eagle Linux m68k came about. There is nothing
against it and nobody has said anything against it in this threat.

> c) Giving people more options to choose from is most often not a bad
> thing.

I totally agree with you there. Having to compare increases the speed
of developement (as long as one doesn't work against each other).

> Goswin> Inbetween Jes used egcs as a reason not to use Eagle linux but
> Goswin> to use Redhat (he thought we had used egcs for compileing our
> Goswin> binaries, which we havent).
> You gave most people the impression on the Debian/m68k list, that you
> were compiling everything with egcs. I asked this and you said no
> ... fine, no problem with that. I never (not once) claimed that Eagle
> used egcs and that people should avoid it because of that.

You gave me that expression when we talked on irc. Nothing against you 
personally, but I just wanted to explain why I think you had a
personal dislike against egcs.

> Goswin> Nothing against Jes, he did a great job with RH-m68k, but I cant
> Goswin> secon his elaborations on egcs.

> You have several times proved that you are totally ignorant when it
> comes to compilers and things that will affect what you generate with
> a certain compiler.

Like what? My opinion is that any package that asks for cc as a
compiler should be happy with whatever cc is (like egcs on my
system). If a package than fails to compile for some reason, its a
Aktually I don't think that the debian policy grants anywhere that gcc 
is used for compilation, correct me when I'm wrong, so if a package
doesnt compile with any compiler that could be considered a bug.

> For those who do not follow the Linux/m68k list I can mention that
> mr. Bredelow announced that his distribution will run on the machines
> such as the NeXT and the Sun3. Neither of these are currently supported
> (there are no running kernels) and binaries will not be Sun3 compatible
> because the MMU and the page-size is different which matters for things
> like ELF.

For those who do not follow ...
That has been rectified, there was a linebreak missing in the
announcement that moves '* under construction *' from the end of the
line into a new line. All architectures after that * under
construction *' are actually under construction and not yet fully

> If you want to know what I really dislike about Eagle Linux, then it's
> that I feel it is a rip-off of the good work done by the other
> Debian/m68k developers, done by someone who claim it to be a great

If you think its a rip-off to have a big thank you for Debian in the
Handbook, to Distribute it fully along with Eagle Linux and to sponsor 
a P200 with 14 GB Hard-disks that will contain a full debian
mirror. (I'm currently waiting for an IP to get it only. I wanted to
get it online before announcing it, but there you go). I think that is 
enough thanks. 

> invention of their own (AFAIK this is one way communication, ie. you
> take stuff from Debian but you do not make any real contributions). The

We did several bugreports and more will follow (together with some
fixes we hope), but lately we were to bussy to do real contributions.

> fact that at least one of the persons working on this project has been
> constantly advocating it on the m68k lists showing his total lack of a
> clue does not make things better. I do not even want to comment on your
> kernel `contributions' here.

I never send a patch for inclusion in the kernel.

> I have great respect for the work done by the other Debian/m68k
> developers and I am deeply sorry that their work will be published by
> someone like you. I sincerly hope that it will not take away any users
> confidence in the real Debian/m68k.
> Yes, I am pissed off - now go away. Stop commenting upon things you do

I never saw you not beeing pissed off. You where pissed of even before 
I started to help the Eagle Linux Project.

> not understand at all and stop commenting on other people behind their
> back.

Just because I wrote something openly on this mailinglist you call
that behind your back? Just because what I said was slightly against
you? I only said that in the text that was quoted you where probably
biased against egcs. If you think I did everything wrong by commenting 
a quote, blame the one who quoted it and everyone who wrote a followup 
as well.

> Goswin> For the Eagle Linux m68k we used egcs during developement and
> Goswin> for cross checking and gcc for the final stuff. Our maschines
> Goswin> (m68k and i386) are running on an egcs compiled kernel for month
> Goswin> without break and so far we have seen not one single problem
> Goswin> caused by egcs (except that it finds more dirt in the Source).
> Again, this proves absolutely NOTHING.

It only proves that its a good idea to use another compiler to test

> Once again I am sorry for posting this off-topic thing to your list.

Me too.

May the Source be with you.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: