[svlug] Stampede Linux 0.86 beta (was: /lib/cpp)

[Rick Moen]

Gee, I was hoping for thoughts or reactions _concerning my problem_
with compiling a 2.0.x kernel, given the provided pgcc, and the 
gcc 2.8.1 evidently compiled _by_ pgcc.

Like: I encountered something like that, too, and here's how I dealt
with.  Or:  You're solving that problem the difficult way, because 
of this datum you're overlooking.

Quoting Jonathan Sergent (sergent at kgb.etla.net):

> In message <19980908160326.C21090 at hugin.imat.com>, Rick Moen writes:
> (Stampede)
>  ] Any thoughts or reactions?
> 
> After all of those things that it doesn't do, what _does_ it do?

I could answer that.

> My first reaction when I first saw their web page was that their initial
> design goals were to not include fvwm95 and to not use RPM or dpkg (and
> a few other things).  The has changed since, but that was the first thing 
> that I saw.  Not that I like fvwm95, but...

I could answer that.  Misconceptions.

> As to the package format, I have heard rumors that RPM 3.x will use the
> same concept (cpio.gz files with the metadata inside them rather than
> tacked on in front of the file).

No interest in that topic.

> They also lack things like source packages, relocatable packages, etc.
> Reinventing the wheel seems counterproductive.

I could answer that.  Misconceptions.

> Any idea what the motivation for using pgcc instead of egcs is?

I could answer that -- or you could read the Pentium Compiler Group's
FAQ.

> BSD-style init scripts bug me.

Irrelevant objection, for reasons explained just prior.

> Their decision to bundle KDE bugs me on ideological grounds,...

{yawn}

> ...and much of the other software they list that they want to add 
> that Slackware does not ship are things that Red Hat (and if not 
> that then almost certainly they are available for Debian as 
> official packages) ship.

Your point is unclear, but (more fundamentally) is almost certainly
completely irrelevant to my problem.

> Some things are sorta silly, like shipping binaries of lsof.  Pretty 
> much whenever you rebuild a 2.0.x kernel, you have to rebuild lsof as 
> well-- or at least you should.  

I could answer that.

> 2.1.x's /proc has enough info to make lsof happy in it and so if 
> you build lsof on 2.1.x (x > 70something IIRC) it will use /proc.

I could answer that.  Misconception.

> Or "Different Cron and At".  What's the point?

I could compare and contrast Dillon cron with Vixie cron -- but 
that would be completely irrelevant to my problem.

I could have answered many of the above (new) topics, but perhaps
you'll understand my selfish interest in my own system's continued
operation.  Which was what I was -=trying=- to discuss.

> Sigh.

I know why _I'm_ sighing:  I've done a great deal to help people
on this list, and, when I post one of _my_ problems, instead of 
assistance, people post pointless digressions and distro-religion.
Somehow, this seems to go several steps past un-helpful, and to 
verge on being downright annoying.

In truth, I doubt that I'm curious as to why _you're_ sighing:
I'm interested in hearing thoughts and comments on my present 
dilemma involving kernels, pgcc, and pgcc-compiled gcc 2.8.1 --
and in particular on my proposed solution.

-- 
Cheers,                    Facta tua Restitueri ad Status Pristinus Eius.
Rick Moen                       (May your data be restored to
rick (at) hugin.imat.com       its original pristine condition.)

--
echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail majordomo at svlug.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to unsubscribe