Will these fixes and patches to the source tree will end up in CVS? Seems
like they should have been in the first place unless they're just dirty
hacks.
On Thursday 13 September 2001 13:11, Aubin Paul wrote:
> GCC 3.0 is much more strict about C++ code than the other versions;
> it follows the specification much more closely. I maintain a couple of
> Debian packages, and they all inevitably required compile fixes for
> GCC 3.0, most of which were backwards compatible.
>
> The big one is when include files contain declaration for functions
> that already exist in the header files.
>
> Aubin
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 02:25:46AM -0400, safemode wrote:
> > Ok, nevermind. I bypassed the check in the configure file and tried
> > compiling. It seems that freeamp is entirely incompatible with gcc 3.x
> > so it doesn't matter about musicbrainz not being detected correctly.
> > _______________________________________________
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.freeamp.org/mailman/listinfo/freeamp-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.freeamp.org/mailman/listinfo/freeamp-dev
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freeamp.org/mailman/listinfo/freeamp-dev
