-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 07 November 2002 02:55 am, Thomas Ribbrock wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote:
> > I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who
> > accused me of spreading FUD was wrong.
> >
> > Well, I fou
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote:
> I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who accused
> me of spreading FUD was wrong.
>
> Well, I found I needed to recompile, after having tweaked a few config
> changes. Then I went to compiling the kernel, and gcc
Bewdy! Thanks Michael. I've filed it away for future reference.
---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 11:51 pm, Edward Dekkers wrote:
> > The build completed without error, though. Here's the steps I used:
> > # rpm -Fvh kernel-source-2.4.18-17.8.0.i386.rpm
> > # cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.18-17.8.0/
> > # make mrproper
> > # cp
> The build completed without error, though. Here's the steps I used:
> # rpm -Fvh kernel-source-2.4.18-17.8.0.i386.rpm
> # cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.18-17.8.0/
> # make mrproper
> # cp configs/kernel-2.4.18-athlon.config .config
> # make oldconfig
> # make dep
> # make bzImage && make modules && echo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 11:02 am, Andrew MacKenzie wrote:
> Are you using RedHat 8.0? I've never succesfully compiled a kernel yet
> under RH8 using either gcc 3.2 or 2.96.
>
> I usually have trouble with the scsi aicxxx stuff.
I've just built a
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Back to gcc 2.96
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 02:01 am, you is done writ:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote:
> > drop me an email offline. Otherwise, when I suggest to folks that they
> > really *do* need to either upgrade or downgrade
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:33AM -0600, mark wrote:
>
> That comment alone suggests that you are not a C programmer, nor have you
No, I'm not, but I don't have trouble compiling kernels (or anything
else) with 2.96, so maybe not being a programmer is not so much a
liability.
> Oh, and I doubt
+++ mark [RedHat] [Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600]:
> and started compiling. And compiling. And compiling. Never did get past IPV4.
>
> SEGVs. Floating point exceptions. Parse errors.
Are you using RedHat 8.0? I've never succesfully compiled a kernel yet
under RH8 using either gcc 3.2 or 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 01:51 am, mark wrote:
> I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who
> accused me of spreading FUD was wrong.
That'd be me, and you're still wrong, sorry.
> Well, I found I needed to recompile, after
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:51:56 -0600, mark wrote:
> I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who
> accused me of spreading FUD was wrong.
Several people. Feel free to add me after reading this message. ;p
> Well, I found I needed
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:33AM -0600, mark wrote:
>
> Oh, and I doubt very much that there are "tens of thousands of people using
> 2.96 to build kernels every day". The overwhelming majority are using rpms,
And what compiler do you think the kernel rpms were built with?
Please check that
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 02:01 am, you is done writ:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote:
> > drop me an email offline. Otherwise, when I suggest to folks that they
> > really *do* need to either upgrade or downgrade,
> > ->SHUT UP<-.
> > unless you think you can *prov
I really don't know who you're arguing with, as I haven't been keeping
up with this thread, but I'm currently using gcc 2.96-112 with no
problems. Not saying that you're right or wrong, because I haven't used
it to try and compile a kernel (I usually do my kernels from RPM's), but
I haven't ha
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote:
> drop me an email offline. Otherwise, when I suggest to folks that they really
> *do* need to either upgrade or downgrade,
> ->SHUT UP<-.
> unless you think you can *prove* that I'm wrong, by giving
> *evidence*, which is defined as d
15 matches
Mail list logo