RE: list

2003-09-11 Thread Condon Thomas A KPWA
Rick Sivernell wrote: List stupid problem needing simple answer. I have rebuilt my system and remounted several partitions when completed. I now have permission denied on the binary programs. They all have : rwxrwxr__ rick users program name and I am loged in as rick in group users. I

Re: list

2003-09-11 Thread Net Llama!
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Rick Sivernell wrote: stupid problem needing simple answer. I have rebuilt my system and remounted several partitions when completed. I now have permission denied on the binary programs. They all have : rwxrwxr__ rick users program name and I am loged in as rick in

Re: List

2002-11-23 Thread kwall
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:06:41PM -0700, Collins wrote: On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:47:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's got to be a highly specific mix. I'm running kernels built with 2.95.3, 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2; a C library built with 3.2; XFree86 built with 3.2 and 2.95.3; and

Re: List

2002-11-21 Thread Collins
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:47:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:37:57AM -0700, Collins wrote: I suppose it all depends on the meaning of is, to quote Bill Clinton. Separately compiled components that have no interaction can be compiled with either compiler,

Re: List

2002-11-20 Thread kwall
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:37:57AM -0700, Collins wrote: I suppose it all depends on the meaning of is, to quote Bill Clinton. Separately compiled components that have no interaction can be compiled with either compiler, and neither is aware of the other, but early adaptors on gentoo

Re: List

2002-11-13 Thread kwall
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:03:46AM -0700, Collins wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really.

Re: List

2002-11-13 Thread kwall
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:03:46AM -0700, Collins wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really.

Re: List

2002-11-13 Thread Collins
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:55:37 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:03:46AM -0700, Collins wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2?

Re: List

2002-11-11 Thread Richard R. Sivernell
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:03:46 -0700 Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't

Re: List

2002-11-10 Thread Richard R. Sivernell
Kurt At http://www.gnu.org/directory/devel/Compilers/gpp.html all they have is 3.0.4. where do I get 3.2. Is there any thing else I need to upgrade to make this work? cheers -- Rick Sivernell Dallas, Texas 75287 972 306-2296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Caldera Open Linux eWorkStation 3.1.1 Registered

Re: List

2002-11-10 Thread kwall
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really. The default configuration is to install 3.2 in /usr/local, alongside whatever you already have. Kurt -- The use of COBOL

Re: List

2002-11-10 Thread Richard R. Sivernell
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:56:20 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 05:34:15PM -0600, Richard R. Sivernell wrote: Kurt At http://www.gnu.org/directory/devel/Compilers/gpp.html all they have is 3.0.4. where do I get 3.2. Is there any thing else I need to upgrade to

Re: List

2002-11-09 Thread kwall
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:44:25AM -0600, Richard R. Sivernell wrote: List I am trying to compile a library call AI Loom, seems it may require g++ 3. What do I need to install other than g++ 3, an problems here to watch out for. gcc 3.x. 3.2 is better than the others in the series.