On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 02:46 +0200, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I must say I have been wondering about this for a while too.
A solution might be add some sort of flag to packages that are binary,
and then let portage install libstdc++ the first
maillog: 27/08/2005-02:46:03(+0200): Bjarke Istrup Pedersen types
I must say I have been wondering about this for a while too.
A solution might be add some sort of flag to packages that are binary,
and then let portage install libstdc++ the first time you install this
kind of package.
You
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
I must say I have been wondering about this for a while too.
A solution might be add some sort of flag to packages that are binary,
and then let portage install libstdc++ the first time you install this
kind of
Subject says it all - is there any reason why 3.4.4 installs either
gcc-3.3* or libstdc++-v3 built with gcc-3.3? Is it possible to compile
a native 3.4 system without the old gcc if I don't need binary
compatibility?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
Subject says it all - is there any reason why 3.4.4 installs either
gcc-3.3* or libstdc++-v3 built with gcc-3.3?
because i got tired of people complaining about broken systems when they
emerged gcc-3.4.4 and cleaned out all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I must say I have been wondering about this for a while too.
A solution might be add some sort of flag to packages that are binary,
and then let portage install libstdc++ the first time you install this
kind of package.
Mike Frysinger skrev:
On Fri,
