> > I then upgraded to 3.1 (which caused nothing but > > nightmares there on in). Not only did MPlayer not compile, but other > > programs that did compile correctly, caused unknown seg faults, and > > other various disturbances. But I chalked that up to beta releases. > > Yes. It's not binary compatible with the old one either, so it will break.
Binary compatible? care to elaborate? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. > > So as a last resort, I downgraded to 2.95. I haven't had a problem > > since. > > It's not binary compatible with gcc296 (or other versions) > wrt. C++. It also has worse performance, more bugs and poorer C++ > conformance (and of course, doesn't run at at all on IA64) I guess that's why ver 2.95 < 2.96. I'd have to question the whole revision numbering system if 2.96 didn't have some form of improvement or fix over 2.95. I think my whole beef is that 2.96 is a RedHat standard, not a Linux standard. ie:, gcc-296 is only offered in rpm format (feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong). So distros like Debian, or Slackware that don't use the rpm packaging system, are unable to use these software packages, unless they adopt, or shall I say, integrate the rpm packaging system. -- -Rob _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
