Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I had really been itching to quote chmouel on that, thanks. Where is he > anyway? I have not seen or heard of him in a while...pink slipped? > management now? :P (of course noone's stupid enough to make him exec) Vacations :-(. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Thierry Vignaud
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Chris Mumford
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? J . A . Magallon
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Maks Orlovich
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... J . A . Magallon
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and n... Gwenole Beauchesne
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Christian Zoffoli
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Thierry Vignaud
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Blue Lizard
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Xavier Bertou
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Geoffrey Lee
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Xavier Bertou
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... Geoffrey Lee
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Juan Quintela
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? dam's