Date:	Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:18:10 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Ford <david AT killerlabs DOT com>
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:	<Pine.LNX.4.05.9903131412530.5561-100000@Midnight.Hacking.in.the.land.of.Kalifornia.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

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

- Raw text -