Yeah, I saw that later message after I sent mine. It just reinforces what I
said though -- without the **complete** error message, any advice is just
guessing.
If "gcc" wasn't the "command not found", then what the devil was? The only
other thing I can thing of is that he entered the "gcc" command on more than
one line, and (a) gcc didn;t compile the module correctly because it was
missing some directives, then (b) the next line returned a
"bash: somethingorother: command not found"
response, interpreting the first gcc directive on that line as a command.
But who knows, really. We'll need to see what John tells us about the
original error.
At 09:13 PM 12/5/99 +0000, Richard Adams wrote [message edited]:
>On Sun, 05 Dec 1999, you wrote:
>> When asking for help about particular errors, you need to quote the
>> **complete** line that contains the error message. My **guess** is that it
>> reads:
>>
>> "bash: gcc: command not found"
....
>Now i'm getting confused here, what you say makes sence Ray, but in a later
>message i received an answer to a question about the version of gcc. the answer
>is;
>> > gcc --version tells the version number.
>>
>> ecs-2.91.66
>
>Huum, it gets more confusing by the mail ;-)
------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
Palo Alto, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
