On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
[sorry for the wide CC; please note the Reply-To header]
Predictably, my efforts to create a synchonization point for XFree86 blew
up in my face.
So, alpha, arm, and m68k, *stop the presses*. You can build this version,
but it's going to be a little buggy, and it will not be the last one you
hav
[My apologies for the obscenely broad crosspost, but I think you'll
understand the reason why.]
XFree86 4.0.2-12 for i386 has been uploaded to auric's incoming. (Yes, I
built it against libc6 2.2.2-2, not 2.2.2-3 or later.)
It is my intention for this to be my last release in the 4.0.2 series.
12 matches
Mail list logo
