[distcc] Re: distcc 2.9 released

[Dag Wieers]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Martin Pool wrote:

> Therefore it's prudent to *assume* that RH compilers might be
> different from their upstream version, and label them differently.

Well, Red Hat/Cygnus has a tight relation to GCC development and that's 
not always bad. IMO the GCC 2.96 release was not a bad decision, but was 
poorly communicated both internally and externally (ie. also a bad naming 
issue).

Anyway, since the compilers take little diskspace I don't consider it 
worth taking the risk of not supplying them seperately, I'd personally 
rather have them tagged 'redhat'.

However if the document is meant to teach people not to differentiate 
compilers (that by version should act the same) Ben is right. And my point 
wasn't actually about the redhat part, rather the rest of the format. (As 
the old document suggested a multitude of formats)

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]