On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:41:01 +0100
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ainsi parlait Stew Benedict :
> [..]
> The current ppc gcc2.95 package and my own standalone gpc package have the
> following common files:
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/%{arch}-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.95.3/SYSCALLS.c.X
> /usr/l
Ainsi parlait Stew Benedict :
[..]
> If it doesn't break gcc2.95, I don't mind if you add it, I suppose we could
> have a sub-package of your gpc which is for x86 with the pieces you need
> and exclude ppc so there is no overlap of files in the PPC install.
The current ppc gcc2.95 package and my o
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:10:51 +0100
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ainsi parlait Geoffrey Lee :
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:50:28PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > > As fpc seems utterly broke, i'm trying for two days now to have a working
> > > gpc package in mandrake. Howerv
Ainsi parlait Geoffrey Lee :
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:50:28PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > As fpc seems utterly broke, i'm trying for two days now to have a working
> > gpc package in mandrake. Howerver, it's a gcc family members, and is
> > *not* (according to its maintainers) compatibl
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:50:28PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> As fpc seems utterly broke, i'm trying for two days now to have a working gpc
> package in mandrake. Howerver, it's a gcc family members, and is *not*
> (according to its maintainers) compatible with 2.96 :-(
>
> Proposed solut
As fpc seems utterly broke, i'm trying for two days now to have a working gpc
package in mandrake. Howerver, it's a gcc family members, and is *not*
(according to its maintainers) compatible with 2.96 :-(
Proposed solutions are:
1) add a gpc subpackage to current gcc 2.96 package
But:
- it is n
