strange. it worked this morning. I couldn't get through the configure
part yesterday night, with the libstdc++ missing error.
anyway, thanks.
Net Llama! wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, M.W. Chang wrote:
>> I updated the gcc to 3.2.1 (following the gcc notes). When I tried to
>> compiled htdig, i
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, M.W. Chang wrote:
> I updated the gcc to 3.2.1 (following the gcc notes). When I tried to
> compiled htdig, it complained about missing libstdc++ libraries. How
> could that be possible? I checked that the gcc source tree had a
> subdirectory libstdc++.
What was the exact err
I updated the gcc to 3.2.1 (following the gcc notes). When I tried to
compiled htdig, it complained about missing libstdc++ libraries. How
could that be possible? I checked that the gcc source tree had a
subdirectory libstdc++.
--
.~.Might, Courage, Vision. In Linux We Trust.
/ v \ h
no go with htdig... still complaining about the libht. well...
m.w.chang wrote:
ok. gcc 3.2.1 built following gcc_notes.
now going back to htdig-3.1.6 (which complained loudly about ostream...)
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux We Trust.
news://news.hkpcug.org/ v \ http
ok. gcc 3.2.1 built following gcc_notes.
proftpd-1.2.8cvs built ok (now using it).
now going back to htdig-3.1.6 (which complained loudly about ostream...)
m.w.chang wrote:
> seems that libstdc++-2.92 was NOT meant for gcc-2.95.3.
> even caldera used libstdc++-2.10 only. what should be th
, everything got
recompiled and everything would work without problem. It's not that
simple for linux, with so many distributions and ways of packaging.
>> you meant if I install gcc-3.2.1 to my COL 3.1, recompile *JUST* the
>> proftpd daemon, and it would work without problem?
>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:00:22AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
> you meant if I install gcc-3.2.1 to my COL 3.1, recompile *JUST* the
> proftpd daemon, and it would work without problem?
Yes, that's what I meant.
Kurt
--
Politics is like coaching a football team. you have to be smar
can you correct me? I knew you knew what I was actually talking about.. :)
Net Llama! wrote:
errr...what's a "2.95.3 library"??
On 12/03/02 18:05, m.w.chang wrote:
yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries
work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *
you meant if I install gcc-3.2.1 to my COL 3.1, recompile *JUST* the
proftpd daemon, and it would work without problem?
maybe my example is too easy... but I am no gcc expert.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:05:39AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
yes, but what about all those
the stuffs in COL 3.1
m.w.chang wrote:
can you correct me? I knew you knew what I was actually talking about.. :)
errr...what's a "2.95.3 library"??
--
.~.Might, Courage, Vision. In Linux We Trust.
/ v \ http://www.linux-sxs.org
/( _ )\ Linux 2.4.20
^ ^7:00am up 3 days, 17:46,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:05:39AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
> yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries
> work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *not*
> downward compatible. You have to go all the away...
Not my experience here.
Kurt
--
Some don't
errr...what's a "2.95.3 library"??
On 12/03/02 18:05, m.w.chang wrote:
yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries
work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *not*
downward compatible. You have to go all the away...
I compiled it on an old desktop runn
yes, but what about all those 2.95.3 libaries? can 3.2.1 gcc binaries
work with older 2.95.3 gcc librarise? I heard that 3.2.x is *not*
downward compatible. You have to go all the away...
> I compiled it on an old desktop running OpenLinux 3.1.1. Well... it works.
> Compiled binaries are a bit lar
There's been a little discussion concerning gcc 3.2.1 and here's my input...
I compiled it on an old desktop running OpenLinux 3.1.1. Well... it works.
Compiled binaries are a bit larger than the same binary compiled with 2.95.3. It
hogs more processor power and... well... Nothing
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:35:56 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:31:06PM -0500, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:00:14PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> On 12/02/02 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> >Last week, but, what's a week among friends, eh? ;-)
>
> Hey, i didn't say "just released".
Duly noted; wisecrack respectfully withdrawn.
> >I'm not the Llama, but I'm pleased to
On Monday 02 December 2002 03:53 pm, Net Llama! wrote:
> On 12/02/02 15:31, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama!
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512
> >>
> &
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:31:06PM -0500, Jerry McBride wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512
> >
> > gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x r
On 12/02/02 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:31:06PM -0500, Jerry McBride wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512
>
> gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the la
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:53:28 -0800 Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/02/02 15:31, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=
On 12/02/02 15:31, Jerry McBride wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512
gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x releases).
How's it work, Llama?
I dunno, haven'
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:09 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512
>
> gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x releases).
>
Ho
http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=512
gcc-3.2.1 has been released (potentially the last of the 3.2.x releases).
--
~~
Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step & Ty
23 matches
Mail list logo