From 90e7605dd8037aec5b6fa1964743fd08fc4867f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: gabucino Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:19:48 +0000 Subject: nice new docu. read it. TODO: place gcc 2.96 Q/A from FAQ to here. git-svn-id: svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk@2868 b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2 --- DOCS/users_against_developers.html | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+) create mode 100644 DOCS/users_against_developers.html diff --git a/DOCS/users_against_developers.html b/DOCS/users_against_developers.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..da1542c7e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/DOCS/users_against_developers.html @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ + + + + + +

In medias res

+ +

There are two major topic which always causes huge dispute and flame on the +mplayer-users +mailing list. Number one is of course the topic of the

+ +

GCC 2.96 series

+ +

The facts : MPlayer's compile process needs the +--disable-gcc-checking to proceed upon detecting a GCC version +of 2.96 (apparently it needs this option on egcs too. It's because we +don't test MPlayer on egcs. Pardon us, but we rather develop MPlayer). +If you know MPlayer, you should know that it has great speed. It +achieves this by having overoptimized MMX/SSE/3DNow/etc codes, fastmemcpy, and +lots of other features. + +

The background : there were/are the GCC 2.95 series. The +best of them was 2.95.3 . Please note the style of the version numbering. +This is how the GCC team numbers their compilers. The 2.95 series are good. +Noone ever saw anything that was miscompiled because of the 2.95's faultiness.

+ +

The action : RedHat started to include a GCC version of 2.96 +with their distributions. Note the version numbering. This should be the GCC +team's versioning. They patched GCC 2.95.3 . They patched it very deep. +They patched it bad. RedHat saw it was bad, but decided to ship it +anyways (even with his "Enterprise-ready" distributions). After all, more +users try it, the more bugreports they get, thus bugfixing and development +goes faster. Development? GCC 2.95 was good enough, where did they want to +develop more? Develop GCC in parallel with the GCC team ? (the GCC team was +meanwhile testing their new GCC 3.0)

+ +

The result : the first RedHat GCC 2.96's were so flawed, that nothing +above hello_world.c compiled. RedHat immediately began making +Service Packs - ups, so they immediately began patching the bugs. They +could have backed out to 2.95 if they wanted. Meanwhile major Linux programs' +like DRI, avifile, Wine and the Linux kernel +developers began wondering why do they receive these new interesting +bugreports. They obviously didn't consider it a good thing, they'd have +better things to do.

+ +

The statements : most developers around the world begun having +bad feelings about RedHat's GCC 2.96 , and told their RedHat users to +compile with other compiler than 2.96 . RedHat users' disappointment slowly +went into anger. Some guy called Bero even put up a page that describes +that GCC 2.96 is not incompatible, but 2.95 was incompatible ! If we +assume this is the case, we should greet RedHat for upgrading our GCC, and +flame all who opposes. But I wonder : why didn't they help the GCC team +to fix their "incompatibilities", why did they instead fork, and +did it on their own? Why couldn't they wait for GCC 3.0 ? What was all good +for, apart from giving headaches to developers, putting oil on anti-RedHat +flame, confusing users? The answer, I do not know.

+ +

Present age, present time : RedHat says that GCC 2.96-85 and above +is fixed, and works properly. Note the versioning. They should have started +with something like this. What about GCC 2.95.3-85 ? It doesn't matter now. +Whether they still use kgcc for kernels, I have no information. I don't search, +but I still see bugs with 2.96 . It doesn't matter now, hopefully now RedHat +will forget about 2.96 and turn towards 3.0.

+ +

What I don't understand is why are we hated by RedHat users for +putting warning messages, and stay-away documents in MPlayer . +Why are we called "brain damaged", "total asshole", "childish" by +RedHat users, on our mailing list, and even on the redhat-devel . +They even considered forking MPlayer for themselves. RedHat users. +Why? It's RedHat that made the compiler, why do you have to hate us? +Are you that fellow RedHat worshippers? Please stop it. We don't hold +a grudge against users, doesn't matter how loud you advertise its contrary. +Please go flame Linus Torvalds, the DRI developers (oh, now I know why +there were laid off by VA!), the Wine, avifile. Even if we are arrogant, +are we not the same as the previously listed ones? Why do we have +to suffer from your unrightful wrath?

+ +

I'm closing this topic. Think over it please. I (Gabucino) personally begun +with RedHat, then used Mandrake (sorry I +don't know their URL), now I have LFS. Never held a grudge against +RedHat or RedHat users, and I still don't. Hate is only comfortable. It +won't bring you anywhere.

+ +

Binary distribution of MPlayer

+ +

I'm too moody now for this.

+ + -- cgit v1.2.3