craigthulu at earthlink.net
Mon Aug 6 03:11:27 PDT 2001
One more 'Aye'.
On Sunday 05 August 2001 11:06 pm, Gerard Beekmans spoke thusly:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:52:20AM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > Hi Gerard,
> > On #lfs tonight we've had a discussion about gcc-3.x and the libgcc
> > issue and the glibc problem; especially the fact that Ulrich has said
> > that as far as glibc is concerned "gcc 3 doesn't exist". I'm just
> > wondering if you've totally decided that version 3 of LFS will use
> > gcc-3.x or whether the issue could be brought up again on lfs-discuss.
> > I'm wondering whether we wouldn't be better off doing a stable release
> > using 2.95.3 and maybe glibc-2.2.3 (after testing of course).
> I just finished my own CVS LFS system today using gcc-2.95.3 and
> glibc-2.2.3. Personally it has passed all my regression tests (X, qt,
> kde, gnome, other stuff) except for openjade. If openjade passes too
> (which I will try tomorrow) then it's all good to go.
> > I don't know as much about this as many other people around here but
> > having read through a bit of the gcc mailing lists, I'm not sure that we
> > are going to get a releasable book from gcc-3.01 or even 3.1.
> I'm beginning to look at it that way as well. I expected the gcc guys to
> co-ordinate with the glibc guys more, but it seems it's not happening,
> or not fast enough. At the rate things go now it'll be months before a
> suitable gcc-3.x is out there and frankly I won't trust gcc-3 at that
> time yet. I was going to bring this up on the list in a few days but you
> beat me to it, so we may as well start now.
> I propose ditching gcc-3.0 from the lfs-cvs book, put gcc-2.95.3 in it,
> finish off the buglist (if everything goes according to what I have
> planned for tomorrow, the buglist will be pretty much empty by tomorrow
> night - but no promises on that one).
> so fellow LFS'ers, you all agree?
> PS Mark, make sure you reply to lfs-discuss, not to me personally...
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev