The results from the first pass at GCC 3.0 (or maybe it's 3.1), using the
3.0 build package, but replacing the tarball with one taken from the CVS
HEAD as of 2002-02-10 (after removing lots of patches that got fixed in the
upstream...):
=== libstdc++-v3 Summary ===
# of expected p
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:38:19AM -0600, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:12:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Sure: apt_0.5.4_freebsd-i386.deb vs. apt_0.5.4_i386.deb
> >
>
> Oh that, well. I don't care about the name
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:12:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Having distributions for particular architectures wouldn't be required. All
> you need is stable, testing and sid. Makes dinstall's job easy. For CD sets,
> you pick a kernel, and pull a list of packages that are compatible with i
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:12:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Of course you have to specify this if you want to use a flexible
> > architecture system. But it should not be part of the design of the
> > architecture system (eg nothing should depend on the selection of such
> > interface n
4 matches
Mail list logo
