From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Feb 9 12:17:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE254251 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:15:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09351; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:41:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:41:44 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: "Jonathan H. Ballard" Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.3 to 3.4 changes in Cplusplus affect FreeBSD source Message-ID: <20000209124144.F17536@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <38A1966C.21C8199C@softcom.net> <20000209111917.W17536@fw.wintelcom.net> <38A1C655.49AF31F8@softcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <38A1C655.49AF31F8@softcom.net>; from cybertronix@softcom.net on Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 11:56:05AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Jonathan H. Ballard [000209 12:16] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > * Jonathan H. Ballard [000209 08:51] wrote: > > > Sound technical advocacy is part of the stand I have taken. The > > > reasonable factor I hope appears as we chat about C++ vs C and the > > > affect of FreeBSD source. > > > > Could we drop this? There's no 'discussion' to be had, you have 2 > > choices: > > > > a) upgrade the entire system > > b) install a newer C compiler from the ports tree avoiding a system > > upgrade. > > > > Since for some reason 'a' offends you, then I suggest trying option > > 'b'. > > what happen to > > c) free to chose (more alternatives) > > "FreeBSD is Free" use the port, if you come up with a better solution then use it, don't expect other to do it for you. > > > > > > > >From my point of view it appears C++ used to be modularized > > > and now it is more a tighter knit towards the core > > > development. C++ is a language with strictness. > > > This strictness might not be flexible enough stableness. > > > (more...) > > > > say what? > > oops > ... > this strictness might not be flexible enough in stableness I resent the fact that you're implying 3-stable is worse than 3.3 without giving any specifics. > > > > > > Maybe this should be kept to freebsd-advocacy. > > > > > > > No it shouldn't, perhaps freebsd-twilightzone. > > let me know when the subscription works it seems someone subscribed me this morning... generally the way the lists work is that: someone posts a question. one or more solutions are proposed by others on the list. these other people are thanked. the thread dies. someone must have opened a rift somewhere. > > > I'd rather you just drop the subject, again you have several choices: > > > > a) use the port. > > b) cvsup/upgrade (see: http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/stable.html) > > c) use the port. > > d) look at the change that was made: > > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src) and try to 'backport' it > > to your version of 3.3 and recompile it > > e) USE THE PORT. > > f) USE THE PORT. > > g) USE THE PORT. > > > > got it? > > "use the port" means? It means use a third party application, one not bundled with FreeBSD, this allows you to upgrade a single component rather than the entire system. see: http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=egcs&stype=all http://www.freebsd.org/ports/lang.html > > ack > it is hard to advocate the technicalness of this reply Why not? it clearly explains what you have to do to get a working solution. This isn't advocacy, stop posting on -advocacy. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message