jeroencoumans at gmx.net
Thu Nov 7 09:45:23 PST 2002
On Thursday 07 November 2002 09:37, Ladislav Danko wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 November 2002 19:08, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> > You mean 2.96.x. The only time that version ever gave trouble was
> > in RH-7.0. But the 2.95.x release is STILL available in RH (and
> > even installed by default IIRC) so this shouldn't stop you from
> > preventing
> are you sure?
> $> gcc -v
> Reading specs from
> gcc driver version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110)
> executing gcc version egcs-2.91.66
> -the same in rh7.2 (and i don't know how in rh7.0), so i'm not so
> sure about gcc2.95.x in rh's7.x distros.
It's there but it's called differently (kgcc ??). I would refer to the
archives since lots of people have reported problems with RH7.x and
everytime someone stepped in and said, hey, just change the link from
gcc to <kgcc>. Working from memory here so please apply grain of salt
before taking too seriously...
> anyway, i wouldn't like making flame, but i hope the best way prevent
> yourself from problems is using official gnu gcc versions of
For LFS, definitely. That's why we bootstrap twice. No flames meant.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-support