https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=344884 User mmarek@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=344884#c7 Michal Marek <mmarek@novell.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #7 from Michal Marek <mmarek@novell.com> 2007-12-04 03:13:46 MST --- (In reply to comment #6 from Zoltan Arpadffy)
(In reply to comment #5 from Michal Marek)
Try reporting the other problems you mentioned to upstream developers of bash, vim, etc and you'll most likely get a similar response. You can't have the latest and greatest and at the same time be 100% backwards compatible for years.
I am one of the upstream developer of Vim. This is the reason why I am absolutely positive that Vim has added features but has not removed or produced incompatibility during past ten year - while I was involved.
Ok, please accept my apologies for my comment about Vim, I use it daily and I must admit that I don't remember having to update my config due to incompatibilities. But I don't agree with you that new bash version has allways been 100% backward compatible, it did change and eg. configure scripts that relied on "bugs" in older versions suddenly failed. Same for make, autotools, not to mention gcc. That's why I'm skeptical about backwards compatibility being a must, Vim seems rather an exception than a rule. But back to the original topic: I don't want to reintroduce the static tools to the binary package (it's unneeded by most users, adds bloat to the Live CD, we would have to resurrect the dropped dietzlib package, and there'd be indeed no testing done), but I can change the spec to optinally build them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.