** On Aug 23, Andrew Suffield scribbled:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 07:17:29PM +0530, Viral wrote:
> > If I am building a new package, which uses c++, is it a better idea to
> > use gcc 3 rather than the current one ?
>
> Not unless the upstream source requires g++ 3.0 (can't think of any
> reason
** On Aug 23, Andrew Suffield scribbled:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 07:17:29PM +0530, Viral wrote:
> > If I am building a new package, which uses c++, is it a better idea to
> > use gcc 3 rather than the current one ?
>
> Not unless the upstream source requires g++ 3.0 (can't think of any
> reason
** On Jan 15, Hamish Moffatt scribbled:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:49:00PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > have brains and skills that can be used. And besides, a SOFTWARE PROJECT is
> > about giving its pariticpants access to software/hardware they can work on,
> > i
** On Jan 15, Hamish Moffatt scribbled:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:49:00PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > have brains and skills that can be used. And besides, a SOFTWARE PROJECT is
> > about giving its pariticpants access to software/hardware they can work on,
> > i
** On Jan 14, Anthony Towns scribbled:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:47:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > > > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
> > > Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
> >
** On Jan 14, Anthony Towns scribbled:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:47:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > > > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
> > > Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
> >
6 matches
Mail list logo
