Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread John Summerfield
> Chuck Byam wrote: > > > BTW: I like the direction of the 7.0 release, however, I share some of the > > sentiments about the inclusion of this gcc version recently propogated > > through the e-press. > > Beleive none of what you hear and only half of what you see. > >From the outside looking in

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread kevin
Chuck Byam wrote: > BTW: I like the direction of the 7.0 release, however, I share some of the > sentiments about the inclusion of this gcc version recently propogated > through the e-press. Beleive none of what you hear and only half of what you see. >From the outside looking in it would seem R

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread John Summerfield
> C compiles OK, but most of my C++ projects do not. Has anyone installed an > older version successfully without breaking other dependencies. redhat has promised to fix it. Give 'em a testcase or three. ___ Redhat-devel-list mailing list [EMAIL P

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread John Summerfield
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chuck Byam wrote: > > > Is gcc borked in this release or what? And why release a beta version of t > he > > compiler (2.96) in a "production" release? > > Here's the link that you should read: > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-09-005-21-NW-CY-RH I got

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread Matt Wilson
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:12:38PM -0400, Chuck Byam wrote: > > C compiles OK, but most of my C++ projects do not. Has anyone installed an > older version successfully without breaking other dependencies. the C++ compiler from egcs 1.1.2 is still there, in the compat packages. If you install a

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread Chuck Byam
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, you wrote: .: On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:45:20AM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote: .: > Chuck Byam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: .: > .: > > Is gcc borked in this release or what? .: > .: > Works for me. .: .: Ditto, so far. Seems a bit faster too... .: C compiles OK, but most of

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:45:20AM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote: > Chuck Byam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is gcc borked in this release or what? > > Works for me. Ditto, so far. Seems a bit faster too... -- Hal B [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ___

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread Alex Kanavin
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chuck Byam wrote: > Is gcc borked in this release or what? And why release a beta version of the > compiler (2.96) in a "production" release? Here's the link that you should read: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-09-005-21-NW-CY-RH -- Alexander Homepage

Re: RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread Alan Shutko
Chuck Byam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is gcc borked in this release or what? Works for me. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! 32 days, 2 hours, 50 minutes, 3 seconds till we run away. Man has never reconciled himself to the ten commandments. ___

RH7 and gcc

2000-10-10 Thread Chuck Byam
Is gcc borked in this release or what? And why release a beta version of the compiler (2.96) in a "production" release? C. Byam ___ Redhat-devel-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list