[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gcc
Mandrake and gcc troubles? LOL. That's one of the reasons I left them. I
think the most recent version I heard of some one using was 3.0.3. Or is that
3.03? I have heard of some people both having some trouble and no trouble
with the 3 series. Frankly, unless you are having major troubles or you know
that 2.95.x isn't going to be around much longer I wouldn't bother changing
for now. If the 3 series is a marked improvement and the future standard I am
sure that it will be included with future releases.
By the way, Mandrake has 2.96 (ugh!) with 3.0 as an option on the third CD.
Is this what you are referring to? I don't understand why others got angry
(unless they breach GPL agreements) as in Mandrke it is a tremendous hassle
to upgrade or downgrade the gcc (at least for any one that does not have at
least a few solid years of Linux behind them, and I mean solid!).
Sarah
On Thursday 10 January 2002 23:17, [email protected] wrote:
> Does anyone know what the official version of gcc is? I know that this
> isn't really a clear question, but I remeber a while back that mandrake
> took some flack for including a 3.x gcc compiler, when the standard was
> 2.95. From this I heard rumors that certain things wouldn't compile.
> Because of this, I have been sticking with 2.95, and have avoided the
> 3.x series (I even saw on a kernel site that some network component
> wouldn't compile with gcc 3.1). However, the most recent packages from
> alsa in the woody tree want me to get gcc 3.0. I have put this off out
> of fear of apps not compiling, but I thought that I should ask if I'm
> just being silly, or if I should stick with just 2.95.
>
> jason
--
The archive is at https://www.libranetlinux.com/archive.html
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE.