| 1 |
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My |
| 4 |
> > question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta |
| 5 |
> > information interpretation definition. In other words, if project X |
| 6 |
> > says their code should be compiled with GCC, what are the benefits |
| 7 |
> > exactly if you change that into "should be compiled with a C99 compliant |
| 8 |
> > compiler", considering you are eventually interested in the produced |
| 9 |
> > code only. (Is it worth it to teach/force devs to use something else |
| 10 |
> > if this is only how to obtain the end product, which should run with |
| 11 |
> > "anything"?) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny |
| 14 |
> the ICC users the ability to compile it? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
that is project X's decision and no one else's. dont pull a stallman on us |
| 17 |
and force everyone to subscribe to your ideas of "freedom". there's a reason |
| 18 |
we told him to take a hike. |
| 19 |
-mike |
Archives