On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:55:46PM -0500, Bob Tanner wrote:
> Can someone fill me in on the whole gcc + redhat mess?
> 
> Long story why I got into this stuff. Been on irc and the mailing list for a
> specific problem.
> 
> Anyway "people" say 2.96 is a non-existent version of gcc, which from what I can
> tell is true. Looks like redhat pulled this out of the butt. Anyone confirm or
> deny this?

RedHat pulled it out of CVS and called it 2.96 to denote that it wasn't *Gasp*
2.95.

> 
> Which leads to WHY did redhat do this?

I suggest this url for a detailed explanation:

http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html

> 
> "People" says 2.96 is crap/buggy/junk/useless/etc, but I've not run into any
> problem, even the xine which says 2.96 WON'T work.
> 

These "people" are usually $otherdist zealots, mplayer claims it won't work
at all either, and has a specific ./configure check for it, it works fine.

Of course, it turned out to be a bug in mplayer having to do with Intel asm.

> "People" say to upgrade to 3.1, -other- people say 3.1 is crap, go to 3.2, still
> others say there is nothing wrong with 2.96. I say I'm just confused.

My typical response to this is 'I'm happy with what I have for now, because
it works fine', of course, if you are having problems, trying gcc 3.1/3.2 
might be worth it.

> 
> Anyone care to enlighten me?


Consider yourself enlightened, please spread the word =)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com>         | Phone : (952)943-8700
> http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax   : (952)943-8500
> http://www.tcwug.org, Minnesota, Wireless | Coding isn't a crime. 

                                              ^- yet.


-- 
Matthew S. Hallacy                            FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified
http://www.poptix.net                           GPG public key 0x01938203