On 23-Mar-99 Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>> > Why not mention *this* in this INSTALL?
>> > How many people here had to ask or figure this out for
>> > themselves provided that they didn't have "cc" working?
>> Uh, you're kidding, right?
>> I think the assumption is that you won't be messing around with compiling a
>> new mail server (or anything else for that matter) from scratch if you
>> can't even figure out your compiler. I've yet to find a stock system with
>> development tools installed where "cc" didn't invoke the compiler.
>
> Fine. Be hostile -- you're not hurting me. Try any solaris system.
>
> security [4258]> /usr/ucb/cc
> /usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed
>
> I have gcc, but I don't just link cc to gcc as some systems
> seem very broken when they depend on the name of the "cc"
> compiler for things.
>
> You know, solaris boot has a check for the current user to be "root"
> so if you put another entry in the /etc/passwd *before* root
> with uid 0, a solaris system won't boot? Isn't that kind of
> pathetic? Why can't the script check "id" or something for
> the uid instead of depending on the *text* output of
> some user check?
Just guessing, but I bet you'd bitch if you were hung with a new rope.
I've had tcpserver compile just fine even with HP's broken compiler. It
seems as if you're trying to find fault just to try and prove your point.
If you know/knew in advance of your non-standard compiler setup you'd be
prepared for it.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
