On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
> I presume that the 180 packages that emerged before this one are not
> effected by this gcc change?
Right. If they had been, they would have failed too.

-- 
t3h 3l3ctr0n3rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Supermarket Deli Clerk and Student Programmer

OpenPGP Key Fingerprint:
    0A65 EEFA B23A F0AC E6C2 C71C BEA0 E055 BE0E EC25

Attachment: pgpRkvTmiaQWX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to