On 10/22/05, ~~~ Rohan ~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Ok. Point taken. But bear in mind that all distros that use gcc4 have > gcc3.x packages. Why let arch be different ? If gcc3 is more compatible with > certain source, why not just use it ? >
Bugger pacman, let's use apt4rpm. Arch is Arch, not debian, ubuntu, gentoo, mandrake, frugalware, slackware, <flavour of the week>, damnsmall. Arch is leading, and sometimes bleeding edge. If those developers do not want their software to be current and to comply with current standards, then they *will* fall by the wayside unless they fix it. And not just on arch, it will fall away in other distros too, but not as quickly. > DP : I wont paste the buildlog, as the problem og qemu / gcc4 is pretty > well known. Googling will give u hundreds of build logs :) > > Aaron : No need to be so rude. It was a suggetion, not an order, and i > wanted views of the community. And it is NOT easy to compile gcc, on any > box. The time it takes... I know! it just takes ages, let's offload it to someone else :D It's not really that difficult to leave it running overnight, when you go to work, or in background while you do something. A compile won't slow your system down for average internet usage, word processing, etc. > Rohan. James Rayner. -- iphitus - archck maintainer Home:iphitus.loudas.com Blog: iphitus.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
