I say 'buggy' becouse it does not compile some libs
correclty; I was/am trying to compile and install the
newest version of Mplayer (As said in the email- see,
I DID tell you the prog), but due to the fact that
some of the libs (like LAME for example)compile
incorrectly due to a very small bug in the code that
does not get used many times due to its nature, I am
sorry if I offended, but I consider something buggy if
it fails to do even one simple thing it should, such
as failing to compile a bit of code when the
language's own parameters lets you do it such and such
a way; Its a personal definition, not stricly a
technical one, although it does have merit under that
term as well, you must admit - Once again, my headache
(As I again said in the email) made me forget to
#define myself a bit more.. oops.

As for the agressive defence of it, I understand what
you are saying, as I said, its a rare thing, yet when
it does happen it creates errors; No matter how little
experiance you have as a programer, a error is still a
bug - I was not mistaken, although your point is
taken, understood, and agreed on ;)

As for cooker, if you are on the dev team (I have no
idea, as I have not been on this list long enough to
know the dynamics in detail), then may I sugest you
take out xmovie and replace it with a working Mplayer?

AS for my problem, I did a standard upgrade/install
from source; Yet when I do a --version, I get th old
one.. as if its not taking, strangly enough - any
ideas on this?

--- civileme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles A Edwards wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
> >Duane King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Due to the buggy nature of the mandrake installed
> Gcc
> >>2.96 (I fail to understand just why they installed
> a
> >>buggy gcc in the first place.. blah), and the fact
> >>that it can not compile some sound and vidio libs
> >>correctly,  
> >>
> >
> >I do not know what compile problems you are having
> But the Mandrake
> >version of gcc-2.9.6 Was and Is not buggy.
> >I used it for nearly a year.
> >
> >The more probable reason is that you are missing a
> necessary lib are
> >devel needed for the specific apps that you are
> trying to  build or that
> >they themselves were built using a different
> compiler.
> >But since you did not bother to name those programs
> there is no way to
> >know.
> >
> >
> >   Charles
> >
> >--------------
> >The way to fight a woman is with your hat.  Grab it
> and run.
> >----------------------
> >Charles A Edwards
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >----------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Want to buy your Pack or Services from
> MandrakeSoft? 
> >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
> >
> Well, unles you believe Mandrake developers are
> idiots, you should note 
> that 2.96 has been in use there in preference to all
> others, for three 
> distros.  The so-called "bugs" were the fact that
> the compiler is 
> STRICT, not allowing sloppy C++ code that 2.95 did
> allow  (Perl compiled 
> under 2.95.3 actually failed its own regression
> tests at our shop). 
>  Anyway, when we think about making a distro, we
> start with a compiler 
> we can trust.  We have tested all the gcc3.x
> compilers and yet they have 
> not been used...  Now finally, Cooker will be using
> a gcc3.1 version and 
> this is likely to become the 9.0 distro compiler,
> but until this time, 
> we had found nothing to match the performance of
> gcc2.96 in producing 
> reliable code (many times we had to tweak source,
> but usually it was 
> something simple like a header that was no longer
> loaded by default and 
> had to be #include (d).)  The fact that the number
> was abandoned by the 
> gcc team made no difference in the stability of the
> compiler, which was 
> a miraculous combination of patches.  It shouldn't
> have worked as well 
> as it has, but it undeniably did so.
> 
> Now if we can compile 3000 packages with 2.96, could
> it be possible that 
> the one or two you have that won't compile might be
> missing something, 
> or be expecting some slack that is not there or even
> be set up as a few 
> packages were to refuse to compile if it saw 2.96?
> 
> Civileme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Want to buy your Pack or Services from
MandrakeSoft?
> 
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Reply via email to