On Sun Aug 20 2000 at 21:03, Chris Abbey wrote:
> At 10:35 8/19/00 -0700, Joseph Malicki wrote:
> >glibc is documented in info, not manpages. the manpages there are just
> >an incomplete and in some cases inaccurate collection, werent they from
> >libc5 or something? The wonders of GNU software.
#:At 10:35 8/19/00 -0700, Joseph Malicki wrote:
#:>glibc is documented in info, not manpages. the manpages there are just
#:>an incomplete and in some cases inaccurate collection, werent they from
#:>libc5 or something? The wonders of GNU software...
#:
Isn't "INFO" the official doc format fo
At 10:35 8/19/00 -0700, Joseph Malicki wrote:
>glibc is documented in info, not manpages. the manpages there are just
>an incomplete and in some cases inaccurate collection, werent they from
>libc5 or something? The wonders of GNU software...
then can we please get rid of the stupid man page
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Jesso ) writes:
> Well I am a new Linux user. I am trying to compile a C++ program which
> uses . It is not in my distro with 6.2.
Try the 7.0beta - it should be included there.
> I am new, so bare with me. What led me to believe that gcc replaces
> egcs is: http://gc
On Sat Aug 19 2000 at 10:35, "Joseph Malicki" wrote:
> glibc is documented in info, not manpages. the manpages there are just
> an incomplete and in some cases inaccurate collection, werent they from
> libc5 or something? The wonders of GNU software...
I **HATE** info, it is the most un-int
> Well I am a new Linux user. I am trying to compile a C++ program
which
> uses . It is not in my distro with 6.2.
>
> I am new, so bare with me. What led me to believe that gcc replaces
> egcs is: http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
>
> "After the April 1999 merger between GCC and EGCS, only a si
Well I am a new Linux user. I am trying to compile a C++ program which
uses . It is not in my distro with 6.2.
I am new, so bare with me. What led me to believe that gcc replaces
egcs is: http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
"After the April 1999 merger between GCC and EGCS, only a single version
n
> As a reluctant windoze developer newly encountering the Linux
> learning curve, I may have a few useful observations to
> contribute. I lurk on this development forum because I'm hoping
> to eventually port my software products to Linux, but so far my
> company only uses Linux for its servers.
> Where are the rpm's for gcc-2.95.2? Surely it doesn't take almost a
> year to build this update. And why not provide gcc-2.95.2 with the
6.2
> distro??
>
> Yes, I can download the source and compile it myself, or better yet
> maybe even make the rpm distro myself but that is besides the point.
Stanislav Meduna wrote:
>
> I personally thought that Red Hat is the company with
> the strongest potential to bring the Linux "to the masses",
> i.e. also to desktop users. If your top priority is chasing
> performance to beat MS in some server benchmark results,
> this is a bad news for me and
Jason Jesso ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> I purchased redhat Linux 6.2 which was released around Apr-June 2000.
> On this distribution they have egcs and no gcc. Isn't egcs history now?
>
> On October 24, 1999 the GCC team released GCC 2.95.2. All I can find on
> Redhat pages are rpm's for gcc-2.
I purchased redhat Linux 6.2 which was released around Apr-June 2000.
On this distribution they have egcs and no gcc. Isn't egcs history now?
On October 24, 1999 the GCC team released GCC 2.95.2. All I can find on
Redhat pages are rpm's for gcc-2.95.1.
Where are the rpm's for gcc-2.95.2? Surely
12 matches
Mail list logo
