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

Re: Unparsable gcc version string? [WAS: lily 1.4.15]

Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:51:49PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> We don't support any other compilers, and with version checking we can
> "Support compilers"?  Unless you're doing something inherently
> unportable, that's disgusting.

Thanks for the compliment.  Do you have any idea how much development
time and goodwill it takes away from your project if you try to
support > 1 C++ compiler?  Remember that Lily started six years ago.
Been there, done that, it was a nightmare*), so we chose to only
support gcc.  In retrospect, using C++ was probably a bad choice.

But if you're really that distgusted, you can always send us a patch,
and pledge to answer build problems with other compilers, if you think
that's a fun thing to do.  We're having enough of them supporting only
gcc (eg, see start of thread).  You'll need to be very friendly and
patient with our non-programmer users, ok?


*) Think buggy compilers.  That need extra or special code.  That
 don't come with a debugger.  That don't have an open bug list.  That
 don't take well documented bug reports.  That don't come with [free
 or non-root-account] upgrades.  That don't come with source.

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: