On Mar 18, Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Neil L. Roeth writes: > > I don't think you understand - I don't believe there is a bug in gcc. > > You're right. Until you describe the problem and submit an appropriate > bug report, I don't understand it. If it's not a gcc bug, then a > statement why A+ cannot use gcc-2.95.3 would be helpful. I cannot find > such a statement on the web page.
Submit a bug against what? gcc, which I don't think has a bug, or A+, which is not a package because I cannot compile it with the compiler supported in potato? :-) I'll be able to provide the statements about why A+ cannot use gcc-2.95.3 right after I get it to compile under gcc-2.95.3, at which point it will be of historical interest only. > > The source code I am trying to compile is just not up to date with the > > differences between 2.91.66 and 2.95.2. While we work on updating the > > source code to 2.95.2, there's value to me in making the older > > compiler available in potato (or woody) so I can make a Debian package > > out of it now. > > - you cannot make egcs-1.1.2 available in potato; it's frozen. > - as Ray pointed out egcs-1.1.2 doesn't build with glibc-2.2. Fine, I guess A+ will not be a Debian package until it compiles under 2.95.2, or whatever is in woody. -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
