On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:13:49PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:37:10PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > > ?
> > >
> > > You should do a little bit of packaging before saying such .
> >
> > Bu
Millions of electrons died to bring me this message. Was it worth it,
Guillaume Cottenceau?
> Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:37:10PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > > ?
> > >
> > > You should do a little bit of packaging before sayi
On 13 Oct 2000, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> 2. Do you know any distribution where they provide original source
>unpatched? There are simply not, the aim of a distribution is to
>provide some fixed (e.g. working) versions of the sources!!!
Probably Slackware which is why I don't like th
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:37:10PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > ?
> >
> > You should do a little bit of packaging before saying such .
>
> But he's right! Aren't there patches made by Mandrake in these packages?
> So it is no
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:37:10PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> ?
>
> You should do a little bit of packaging before saying such .
But he's right! Aren't there patches made by Mandrake in these packages?
So it is not the original source anymore.
Alexander Skwar
--
Homepag
Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Mandrake doesn't use *any* official releases.
> $ uname -r
> 2.2.17-21mdksecure
>
> $ rpm -qa | grep glibc
> glibc-2.1.3-16mdk
> glibc-devel-2.1.3-16mdk
> compat-glibc-5.3-2.0.7.9mdk
> glibc-profile-2.1.3-16mdk
>
>
> See those "-21mdksecure
Millions of electrons died to bring me this message. Was it worth it,
Mattias Eriksson?
> As I always have said, if you are just going to use it for cooker, and _never_
> do a release using this snapshot (you can call it what ever, but it's not a
> official gcc release), I have no problems at a
At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > > And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
> >
> > To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
> > "if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our ne
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > > And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
> >
> > To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
> > "if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our next release we wi
Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
>
> To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
> "if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our next release we will have to
> find a solution, and it wil
Pixel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > > And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
> >
> > To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
> > "if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our next releas
At 12 October, 2000 Pixel wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > > And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
> >
> > To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
> > "if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our next release
Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
>
> To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
> "if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our next release we will have to
> find a solution, and it will
At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
"if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our next release we will have to
find a solution, and it will not be to revert to 2.95 for sure."
Have you people at m
Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I have asked several times about when they plan to release gcc-3.0 and
> haven't got one single reply that might even look like an answer to that. From
> that I assume that people simply dont know. Still, they are claiming that we
> must get prep
Ok, I have asked several times about when they plan to release gcc-3.0 and
haven't got one single reply that might even look like an answer to that. From
that I assume that people simply dont know. Still, they are claiming that we
must get prepaired for it!
The fact that they don't have a clue
16 matches
Mail list logo