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
