Gcc installation problem

[Dan Kegel]

Mike Stump wrote:
> On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 01:46 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> 
>> I don't think it's quite fair to call RH's gcc "2.96" defective;
>> it's just poorly named.
> 
> 
> No, it isn't poorly named either.  That happens to be the best name for it.

gcc-2.96-rh would have pissed off gnu less.
- Dan

-- 
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045