@Philipp thanks for giving me the idea, I will see if I can find one, though I am not 100% sure I will be able to since it is not actually on Debian's site. Somebody built the package for the software author. On 06/04/2010 02:36 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:29:56 +0200:
First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work
What about using debian patches? I don't know why they aren't upstream in the first place, but...
At the moment I kind of understand it that alternatives to compiling are sought. gcc4.5.0 seems to not only introduce new warnings and errors but also bugs. I helped yesterday to hopefully nail a bad optimisation related one. Some call it insane to build a distro on a *.0 gcc.