> >
> > While I'm not the one to make such decisions, I'd say that we'll
> > switch to gcc when it becomes feasible to do so. In any case,
> > we'll work on removing the compiler dependencies out of the
> > distribution.
> >
>
> Spec files are made for people who are supposed to be knowledgeabl
> John,
Suckered again.
How I wish people would NOT SEND REPLIES TO ME AND TO THE LIST.
I know some thing there's merit in doing so. They're wrong.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
--
To unsub
> Svante Signell wrote:
> > Regarding the question whether egcs or gcc is going to be the default
> > compiler is important, regardless of building for i386 or i686. The
> > glibc spec file (2.1.2-17) had egcs hardcoded in, causing the library
> > to fail install, see earlier postings!! It install
JF Martinez wrote:
> By the
> way if you need automatic replacements that is what sed was made for.
Feel free to give me some pointers on fixing configure lines with sed,
as I've not yet been able to handle all the possible combinations
of formats.
Fixing "CC=egcs" is trivial though; as I said,
>
> JF Martinez wrote:
> > Spec files are made for people who are supposed to be knowledgeable
> > enough for editing them and replace the string egcs by gcc so this
> > is not a problem.
>
> *laugh* Obviously you've never had to build thousands of RPMS :)
> I've built 1052 for my current NetWi
JF Martinez wrote:
> Spec files are made for people who are supposed to be knowledgeable
> enough for editing them and replace the string egcs by gcc so this
> is not a problem.
*laugh* Obviously you've never had to build thousands of RPMS :)
I've built 1052 for my current NetWinder ARM Linux di
>
> Svante Signell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > Since nobody from redhat answered and since the rawhide release
> > 19991220 did not make any changes to glibc or remove egcs I'll try
> > again: Is gcc or egcs going to be the default compiler in future
> > releases?
>
> Switching back to gcc f
>
> While I'm not the one to make such decisions, I'd say that we'll
> switch to gcc when it becomes feasible to do so. In any case,
> we'll work on removing the compiler dependencies out of the
> distribution.
>
Spec files are made for people who are supposed to be knowledgeable
enough for edi
Svante Signell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> Since nobody from redhat answered and since the rawhide release
> 19991220 did not make any changes to glibc or remove egcs I'll try
> again: Is gcc or egcs going to be the default compiler in future
> releases?
Switching back to gcc from egcs causes p
Svante Signell wrote:
> Regarding the question whether egcs or gcc is going to be the default
> compiler is important, regardless of building for i386 or i686. The
> glibc spec file (2.1.2-17) had egcs hardcoded in, causing the library
> to fail install, see earlier postings!! It installed OK with
John,
Thank you for your reply. Are you speaking on behalf RedHat? Or are
you employed by them? If so, please let me know!
Regarding the question whether egcs or gcc is going to be the default
compiler is important, regardless of building for i386 or i686. The
glibc spec file (2.1.2-17) had egcs
> Since nobody from redhat answered and since the rawhide release
> 19991220 did not make any changes to glibc or remove egcs I'll try
> again: Is gcc or egcs going to be the default compiler in future
> releases?
>
> Another very important thing nobody seem to have noticed: When
> compiling uti
Since nobody from redhat answered and since the rawhide release
19991220 did not make any changes to glibc or remove egcs I'll try
again: Is gcc or egcs going to be the default compiler in future
releases?
Another very important thing nobody seem to have noticed: When
compiling util-linux (still
> Hello,
>
> A small change in the spec file for glibc enabled a switch from
> egcs-1.1.2-25 to gcc-2.95.2-3. From now on I'm using the gcc
> compiler. Seems to be working OK, so far for rebuilding updated
> srpm's from the rawhide distribution. I even succeeded in building a
> i686 version of th
Hello,
A small change in the spec file for glibc enabled a switch from
egcs-1.1.2-25 to gcc-2.95.2-3. From now on I'm using the gcc
compiler. Seems to be working OK, so far for rebuilding updated
srpm's from the rawhide distribution. I even succeeded in building a
i686 version of the compiler, no
15 matches
Mail list logo
