Re: gcc 2.7.2.3 question

[Katherine L Ellis <kellis@primenet.com>]

Ok guys I am going crazy.
1) my ld is pl40.
2) the fixstk now always chmod 500 the file I input.
3) the installation is MORE than suspicious. why don't we have 1 way
to install gcc? is it that hard to agree with each others?
I mean generally libs in /usr/lib not in /usr/local/lib 
Include in /usr/include  and for g++ /usr/include/g++
and all the bin would be sym links from wherever to /bin.
btw someone said, and you also have to link "such"(don't remember the
name) program to /bin AND /usr/bin  but as far as I know, our /bin and
/usr/bin are the same and are already sym.linked.
Well guys very confusing for such an operation, No one knows what this
"specs" actually really does?  
Is that black magic we are playing with?
Seems so to me. BTW I also got the g++ 2.7.2.3 and it is apparently
missing the lib libpml.a or .olb whatever, is it the portable math
library? 

Also what is this story about .olb and .a files for libs??
Why don't we stay consistent?
In my opinion we already have enough problem with the libs,
developments, etc, to also fight with a gcc setup.
NOT EVEN a Makefile in a clean distribution with a install target??
I must be dreaming, pinch me :)

Next time I will release a software I will tar.gz  the rsc, put it on
ftp.funet.fi, the INF file as is on ftp.lip6.fr and the .PRG zoo
packed on atari.archive.umich.edu  :) 
The first who gets it to work wins something :)
Well enough joking, I hope you see my point.


 On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Yves Pelletier wrote:

>It might help to upgrade your ld to PL40;  I know my setup
>worked more smoothly with gcc 2.7.x after I did.  I think I got
>it from tu-harburg.
that helps a lot, but hmm lemme think, I already have ld pl40, and
could you fill the ftp address a little bit more?


________________________________________________________________________________
Email:Kellis@primenet.com
Web http://www.primenet.com/~kellis/
________________________________________________________________________________