On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 11:17:04AM +0200, Lapo Luchini wrote:
It's an useful program, compiles OOTB, I needed something to test the
method two of packaging (no, this isn't a reason eheh)... why don't?
Thumbs up or thumbs down?
I've uploaded this package to sourceware.
Please notice that I will
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'm finishing up on the release of gcc 3.1 and I have a few gotchas that
I'd like to discuss:
1) I was going to take Red Hat's cue and release the new version of
gcc as gcc3. However, this will require manual deinstallation of
gcc (2.95.3-whatever) so
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:44:08AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
FWIW, I think this is the way I should have laid stuff out originally.
It should be i686-pc-mingw32.
I thought I asked about the mingw32 - mingw transition a while ago and you
were fine with it.
I've never actually understood the
Hi!
Monday, 24 June, 2002 Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CF I'm finishing up on the release of gcc 3.1 and I have a few gotchas that
CF I'd like to discuss:
CF 1) I was going to take Red Hat's cue and release the new version of
CFgcc as gcc3. However, this will require manual
Christopher Faylor wrote:
So, maybe I should rename the old version to gcc2 or release a version
of 2.95.3 that names the binaries (i686-pc-cygwin-gcc2) differently.
Any thoughts?
I like this. 'gcc' ought to the the ongoing, 'current' package. If
folks want the old version, the
egor duda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, libstdc++ in gcc 3.* is configured so that classes in std::
namespace are not visible unless one specify std:: via 'using' or
explicitly. I feel this can be the problem that will make most
noise.
Cygwin setup is just one example of program affected. I
Hallo Nicholas,
Am Sonntag, 23. Juni 2002 um 22:39 schriebst du:
setup.ini is at:
http://today.clemson.edu/cygwin/
perl
category: Interpreters
requires: cygwin gdbm db4.0
version: 5.8.0-RC2-1
This isn't correct. If DB is really in the requires list then it
should read 'libdb4.0', but:
$
I just prepared package for new UCL 1.21 I think only big change is
that... I used method two for packaging.
Please review the package as it's only the second time I use method two,
but I don't see any error (well, of course.. if I seen them I would have
corrected them...).
Same usual
This all gets my vote, particularly libiconv. And as a bonus, it gives me yet
another excuse to delay release of mutt-1.4-1 ;-) (it uses libiconv).
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer. Patriot.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles
ditto for ImageMagick (it uses it too, and I could use an excuse).
-Original Message-
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2002 10:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: libiconv
This all gets my vote, particularly libiconv. And as a bonus, it
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 10:49:57AM +1000, Billinghurst, David (CRTS) wrote:
ditto for ImageMagick (it uses it too, and I could use an excuse).
I don't think there is any doubt that this will be useful. I'd say go
for it, Chuck.
Okay, it's uploaded.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 10:49:57AM +1000, Billinghurst, David (CRTS) wrote:
ditto for ImageMagick (it uses it too, and I could use an excuse).
I don't think there is any doubt that this will be useful. I'd say go
for it, Chuck.
Okay, it's
12 matches
Mail list logo
