(forw) Re: [SLE] gcc problem with suse8.2
Because a reply to all was issued and I wasn't looking at which one
procmail decided to shove into my SLE folder..this wasn't sent to the
list. Which I'm doing now.
Please people. The person who posts to the list will get the email from
the list. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to CC or BCC the poster. If your
worried about the speed at which you get a reply then please learn to be
patient and wait for the list to get posted to. It's just irritates
people like me who get 1000's of emails a day to have to keep track of
who hit the reply to all button.
----- Forwarded message from Ben Rosenberg
I think the original ppost was refering to the old gcc version 3.3-23 not 3.3-43 what SuSE released.
I tried using the old gcc compiler right. The compiler what SuSE ships by default.
Looks like you are using the new gcc stuff from: ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/gcc/8.2
I will update soon my gcc to 3.3 and give a try to lyx. Should work. I had problems in getting 2.95 compile using 3.3-23 but I will try again after my update to 3.3-43
True. I knew that it was the "default" packages that were being talked about but I was trying to illustrate that GCC 3.3 can compile this program and that installing GCC 2.95.x into a system that was completely compiled with GCC 3.3 is not the smart thing to do. I just couldn't understand why people were still using the pre-release since it's been mentioned on the SLE about 20-30 times that newer release package have been issued. :) Upgrading is a good thing. I've had no issues with 3.3 final with the acception of a few 0.x releases of KDE themes that seem to just shite themselves with no explaination...most likely bad code. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.
[Ben Rosenberg]
It's just irritates people like me who get 1000's of emails a day to have to keep track of who hit the reply to all button.
It might irritate us, who also handle a lot of email every day, deciphering headers and pondering if "reply to all" is adequate for each and every of the From: or Cc:ed addresses. Depending on the list, From: address may be a list member or not, not all lists are run the same way, and we do not necessarily remember all details. The simplest is replying to all, when we want to reach all. It often happens that recipients ask everybody else to adapt to their own habits and work methods. You use procmail in some way, while others may do differently, and what becomes an inconvenience through your work methods might not even be noticed by others. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
* François Pinard (pinard@iro.umontreal.ca) [030822 22:59]:
[Ben Rosenberg]
It's just irritates people like me who get 1000's of emails a day to have to keep track of who hit the reply to all button.
It might irritate us, who also handle a lot of email every day, deciphering headers and pondering if "reply to all" is adequate for each and every of the From: or Cc:ed addresses. Depending on the list, From: address may be a list member or not, not all lists are run the same way, and we do not necessarily remember all details. The simplest is replying to all, when we want to reach all.
It often happens that recipients ask everybody else to adapt to their own habits and work methods. You use procmail in some way, while others may do differently, and what becomes an inconvenience through your work methods might not even be noticed by others.
You just proved my point. You could have just sent this to the list or to me but you made the consious choice to send to me and CC the list. That makes you an asshole. My reply just went to you. There was no need to send the holier-then-thou email below to the list -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.
participants (2)
-
Ben Rosenberg
-
pinard@iro.umontreal.ca