[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [reiserfs-list] ReiserFS Oops (2.4.1, deterministic, symlink related)
    Alan Cox wrote:
    > > As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
    > > gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
    > > version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
    > > C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans if he decides
    > > to outlaw gcc-2.96[.0] for reiserfs compiles.
    > Oh I can see why Hans wants to cut down his bug reporting load. I can also
    > say from experience it wont work. If you put #error in then everyone will
    > mail him and complain it doesnt build, if you put #warning in nobody will
    > read it and if you dont put anything in you get the odd bug report anyway.
    > Basically you can't win and unfortunately a shrink wrap forcing the user
    > to read the README file for the kernel violates the GPL ..
    > Jaded, me ?
    > Alan

    I fear that you are speaking from experience about the complaints it doesn't
    build, and that there is a strong element of truth in what you say.

    That said, my opinion is that bug reporting load is not as important as bug
    avoidance, but I understand your position has merit to it also.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.021 / U:4.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site