[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gcc
Well, gcc was still a problem in 8.0 but I wasn't able to get 8.1 installed
but there are definitely less problems with it now. However, I am not sure if
it is because few people compile rather than install the binaries (rpms) I
think there still the odd problems as 2.96 is still the default and there are
still many things that won't compile without (urp!) forcing it.
But really the point is moot. I as I was browsing through the user forum I
just noticed that one person was trying to install gcc 3.0.3 so I assumed
that this was the most current release. As someone mention before, though, I
believe that 3.1 will be the next full release. When I don't know.
Currently, 2.95 has not posed any problem for me so, personally, I don't see
the need to upgrade to or parallel with 3.0.x series right now. But, of
course times change and I will likely have to change sometime.
Sarah
On Friday 11 January 2002 07:15, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Sarah Hay wrote:
> > 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!).
>
> I don't think that people were angry, more like annoyed when things they
> wanted to compile wouldn't do so. This was a while back so I'm guessing
> its not a problem anymore, and maybe it never really was a problem in
> the first place, other than the typical whinning when things change.
>
> jason
--
The archive is at https://www.libranetlinux.com/archive.html
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE.