Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> sindi keesan wrote:
> > Is it okay to keep using gcc 2.95.3 instead of
> > 2.95.2?
>
> Yes, in fact it is the best option (as long as you
> use the matching glibc, binutils and make from
> Slackware 8.1).

I have been using gmake and binutils from SW71 on all but the one
computer that I put together for my partner (with the kernel-headers for 
SW81 which I need to change back to linuxinc from SW71 - or are they 
simply ignored when compiling kernel 2.2.16?)

Would this explain why ghostscript compilation got stuck after compiling a 
couple dozen object files?  As a test I can try compiling on the computer 
with make from SW81, I guess.

make:

[obj/gsciemap.o] Error 1   (exited)

/tmp/cc05123w.s :  189  no such 386 instruction:  'filds'
(five more of this line with different line numbers - I did not find any 
cc05123w.s file)

It did fine with SANE.

How did you ever manage to compile so many programs for BL with your odd 
mixture of parts from different places?

I got Mozilla/Firefox to work (it does ActiveX and Opera does not - a 
visitor needed ActiveX to check his google email which allows 1G storage) 
by first installing libgtk.tgz (in BL2 with glibc2.2.5) and then unpacking 
the big Mozilla .tar.gz in / and and then typing Mozilla while in X.  Did 
it install itself while I was not looking?  I tried it only with XSVGA 
because my partner seems to have broken Xvesa somehow.  Does it also work 
with Xvesa in BL3 with updated glibc?

Mozilla took 30 sec to load in Win98 but is nearly instant in linux, why?

> Cheers,
> Steven
>
> ____________________________
> http://www.basiclinux.com.ru
> _______________________________________________
> BasLinux mailing list
> BasLinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux

keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org