On 25-Jun-2002 Marcelo Chiapparini wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:34:52 +0200 > "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip, snip> > >> That's because Debian tries to stick as closely as is reasonably >> possible to official gcc releases. "2.96" (of which there appear to be >> many versions which are difficult to distinguish) has a lot of issues; >> it has e.g. been known to build gnumeric binaries which produced >> extremely inaccurate results; gnumeric's CVS version (and some other >> software as well AFAIK) has been changed to refuse compilation with >> "2.96". >> >> Your best option is to go for 3.1. > > but 3.1 is only in unstable! In testing it only goes till 3.0. How does > compare 3.0 with 3.1? >
3.0 is reasonable, 3.1 just adds improvements in speed and architecture support. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
