From owner-cvs-user Mon Mar 13 18:03:23 1995 Return-Path: cvs-user-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id SAA05044 for cvs-user-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 18:03:23 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA05031; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 18:03:18 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id TAA04340; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:07:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:07:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199503140207.TAA04340@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp "Re: cvs commit: src/release/compat20 libgcc.so.261.0.uu" (Mar 13, 5:45pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/compat20 libgcc.so.261.0.uu Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-user@freefall.cdrom.com Sender: cvs-user-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > I doubt the GNU people would be that anal retentive, since we already > published the sources for the 2.0-RELEASE on the net... Uhh, you are wrong about that one. They are *very* anal and retentive about it since they want *everyone* to be able to get the exact source that created the binaries. The Minix folks find this out when Bruce made the 1.X binaries available for minix-386 and the archive sites only kept the binaries and the diffs. The GNU folks said they were required to keep the sources online as well even though the sources could be gotten from other sites. The reasoning was the other sites would delete the old sources when the new versions came on line (similar to us deleting 2.0 when 2.1 comes on line). Those folks who get a 2.1 CD will not have the sources for libgcc.so.262.0 at their beck and call. Nate