Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-29 Thread Jose' Matos
On Wednesday 29 October 2003 17:08, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Jose'> I learned with the masters. (Are you hearing Jean-Marc? ;-) > > I did not know I was as annoying as that :) Not annoying but persuasive. :-) > JMarc -- José Abílio LyX and docbook, a perfect match. :-)

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-29 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Jose'" == Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Obviously you put this script in wiki, I suppose? ;-) >> >> Bah.. now you made me do it... I even documented the bloody thing. Jose'> I learned with the masters. (Are you hearing Jean-Marc? ;-) I did not know I was as annoying as t

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-29 Thread Jose' Matos
On Wednesday 29 October 2003 13:58, Christian Ridderström wrote: > I was being ironic... Oh, ok. :-) > > Obviously you put this script in wiki, I suppose? ;-) > > Bah.. now you made me do it... I even documented the bloody thing. I learned with the masters. (Are you hearing Jean-Marc? ;-)

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-29 Thread Christian Ridderström
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Jose' Matos wrote: > > Unless you are ranting, I was mainly thinking about users who would like > > to be able to install lyx 1.4 on RH 7.3... > > (it's strange, but later versions of RH need better hardware...) > > What is strange here? I was being ironic... > Obvious

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
"Garst R. Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | And I still run into apps that will only compile with 2.95, which may | explain why some dists use it. There's no excuse for 2.96 tho. And I'll claim that those apps really need a brush up, and don't deserve to be called a C++ program. :-) Or perhap

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Garst R. Reese
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Also first gcc compiler in the 3 series was released June 18. 2001. > that is now almost two years ago... still there are distributions that > use gcc 2.95 in their "stable" setups. > > -- > Lgb And I still run into apps that will only compile with 2.95, which

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > >> Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> | Could be... it's what came with RedHat 7.3. Anyway, linking only produces >> | other errors, so I'll just keep on working using gcc

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Angus Leeming
Christian Ridderström wrote: > Unless you are ranting, I was mainly thinking about users who would > like to be able to install lyx 1.4 on RH 7.3... Specifically, uers who would like to run the Qt frontend will need to compile the Qt libraries too if they use anything other than the default com

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Jose' Matos
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 16:18, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > Unless you are ranting, I was mainly thinking about users who would like > to be able to install lyx 1.4 on RH 7.3... > (it's strange, but later versions of RH need better hardware...) What is strange here? > In my case (on our

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Lars> yeah... RH 7.3 how old is that now? RH 8 has come and gone, RH 9 | Lars> is still going strong, with RH 10 looming on the horizon... > | Lars> I am of course a strange creatu

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Christian Ridderström
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Could be... it's what came with RedHat 7.3. Anyway, linking only produces > | other errors, so I'll just keep on working using gcc 3.3.2 instead. > > > | If it's important to make LyX compi

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lars> yeah... RH 7.3 how old is that now? RH 8 has come and gone, RH 9 Lars> is still going strong, with RH 10 looming on the horizon... Lars> I am of course a strange creature, but I see no reason to stick Lars> with RH 7.3, especia

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Angus Leeming wrote: > >> Christian Ridderström wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > I'm trying to compile lyx-xforms using gcc 2.96, but I get errors >> > like this: >> > >> > -c ../../../src/insets/ExternalSupport.C In file inclu

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Christian Ridderström
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > Could be... it's what came with RedHat 7.3. Anyway, linking only produces > > other errors, so I'll just keep on working using gcc 3.3.2 instead. > > > > If it's important to m

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > Could be... it's what came with RedHat 7.3. Anyway, linking only produces > other errors, so I'll just keep on working using gcc 3.3.2 instead. > > If it's important to make LyX compile with 2.9.6 in the future, I can > ta

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Christian Ridderström
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Angus Leeming wrote: > Christian Ridderström wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I'm trying to compile lyx-xforms using gcc 2.96, but I get errors > > like this: > > > > -c ../../../src/insets/ExternalSupport.C In file included from > > ../../../src/support/debugstream.h:17, > >

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 03:29:10PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:59:08PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > > So, how should I fix this? If boost is an external "library", then > > > changing that code isn't a

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Christian Ridderström
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:59:08PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > So, how should I fix this? If boost is an external "library", then > > changing that code isn't an option, is it? > > If nothing else helps, simply #include > And similarly, c

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Christian Ridderström
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:59:08PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > So, how should I fix this? If boost is an external "library", then > > changing that code isn't an option, is it? > > If nothing else helps, simply #include Are you suggesting

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:59:08PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > So, how should I fix this? If boost is an external "library", then > changing that code isn't an option, is it? If nothing else helps, simply #include Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Securi

Re: ostream v.s. ostream.h

2003-10-28 Thread Angus Leeming
Christian Ridderström wrote: > Hi > > I'm trying to compile lyx-xforms using gcc 2.96, but I get errors > like this: > > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../src/insets -I../../src > -I../../../src/insets/../ -I../../../boost > -I/pkg/mdhacks/grp/util/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -g -O > -fno-exce