Re: [reiserfs-list] ReiserFS Oops (2.4.1, deterministic, symlink

[Hans Reiser]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
> > gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
> > version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
> > C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans if he decides
> > to outlaw gcc-2.96[.0] for reiserfs compiles.
> 
> Oh I can see why Hans wants to cut down his bug reporting load. I can also
> say from experience it wont work. If you put #error in then everyone will
> mail him and complain it doesnt build, if you put #warning in nobody will
> read it and if you dont put anything in you get the odd bug report anyway.
> 
> Basically you can't win and unfortunately a shrink wrap forcing the user
> to read the README file for the kernel violates the GPL ..
> 
> Jaded, me ?
> 
> Alan

I fear that you are speaking from experience about the complaints it doesn't
build, and that there is a strong element of truth in what you say.

That said, my opinion is that bug reporting load is not as important as bug
avoidance, but I understand your position has merit to it also.

Hans