1 |
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:29:15 +0000 |
2 |
Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
first of all, let me mention there's a short defense of top posting ... |
5 |
at the bottom ;) |
6 |
|
7 |
have you tried emerge --unmerge =gcc-3.4.5 ? note that equal sign, |
8 |
it's usually necessary to include that when specifying a version. |
9 |
|
10 |
I also wanted to make sure you're following the gcc 3.x -> 4.x upgrade |
11 |
guide online, because you'll need to, if you don't want a borked |
12 |
system. |
13 |
|
14 |
best of luck, |
15 |
|
16 |
--dan. |
17 |
|
18 |
> Hi All, |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I just upgraded to gcc-4.1.1. gcc-config -l shows that gcc-3.4.5 is |
21 |
> still there: |
22 |
> |
23 |
> # gcc-config -l |
24 |
> [1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5 |
25 |
> [2] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardened |
26 |
> [3] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednopie |
27 |
> [4] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednopiessp |
28 |
> [5] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednossp |
29 |
> [6] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1 * |
30 |
> |
31 |
> When I try to remove gcc-3.4.5, it doesn't exist: |
32 |
> |
33 |
> # emerge -C -p -v gcc-3.4.5 |
34 |
> |
35 |
> >>> These are the packages that would be unmerged: |
36 |
> |
37 |
> --- Couldn't find 'gcc-3.4.5' to unmerge. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> >>> No packages selected for removal by unmerge. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> If it doesn't exist, why is it listed? There's most likely a good |
42 |
> explanation for this, but it's getting late and I must be too tired |
43 |
> to understand it. Could you please care to explain? |
44 |
|
45 |
A defense of 'top posting' -- Caution, off topic!!! |
46 |
|
47 |
Whether the reply text goes before or after the message to which it |
48 |
replies depends entirely on personal preferance. Some people choose to |
49 |
run their email clients at full screen and/or on a large display, and |
50 |
perhaps can see the top of the email and the bottom at the same time; |
51 |
thus they can look over the original post and then read the response. |
52 |
However, if one hasn't a big display or a fullscreen mail client (hey, |
53 |
I have lots of windows up that I want to see/switch between!) having |
54 |
responses at the end means you need to scroll way down to the bottom of |
55 |
each message to see the responses. Usually, if you're following a |
56 |
thread closely, you'll already know the train of conversation, so all |
57 |
the response-to quotations are just in the way. Even if you don't have |
58 |
to scroll the text at all, you still have to wade through the question |
59 |
to get to the answer. In time, as the response-to quotations get |
60 |
longer and longer, much space is wasted by this section, and much |
61 |
scrolltime is also wasted. Therefore, I conclude that although I |
62 |
respect the opinions of those who choose to bottom-post, and agree with |
63 |
the reasons it is nice, I also insist that there are also good reasons |
64 |
to top-post, and that I think the only real solution is for us all to |
65 |
live with each others preferences when we can't honor our own. |
66 |
|
67 |
Friendily, |
68 |
Dan. |
69 |
-- |
70 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |