Drool... WAS --> Re: Autoconf Version 2.14.1
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jan 5 09:48:23 PST 2001
> I was talking to someone (sorry, can't remenber who right now) on #LFS
> the other day about GCC 2.95.3 (the 2.95.2 bug fix release coming up,
> problably before 3.0 will be release) which is suppose to be compatible
> with Glibc 2.2..
So you're saying that gcc-2.95.2 isn't compatible with glibc-2.2 ? explain
that one please.
> as for getting Glibc 2.2 into LFS...can we just wait a little, little
> bit? or at least untill GCC 3.0 is release, or like in the old days
> have a stable and development branch for the book (such as starting
> 2.5.x for glibc 2.2/gcc 2.95.3/3.0) as much as i love bleeding to dead,
> i also like to stay as stable as possible ;)
Perhaps your reservations regarding gcc-2.95.2 and glibc-2.2 are unwarranted.
Perhaps they are not. I mean there's nothing wrong with being cautious about
these things. But I don't claim to be the only person running a very stable
system with glibc22 and gcc2952. Again what runs fine here doesn't mean it
runs fine there (all those nice hardware intricaties). But when will you
declare something safe enough to use? Perhaps gcc-3.0 isn't all that great as
we hope to think, but we install gcc-3, install LFS, run a bunch of programs
and if everything compiles fine and runs fine and daemons don't crash when
running for a lenghty amount of time I will call such a system stable. The
thing is, I have done all that above and more with gcc-2.95.2 with the same
results, so from that point of view I have declared my system stable already.
Also, the kernel says to use egcs-2.91.55 or something and not gcc-2.95.2.
Fine, but if you can't use gcc-2.95.2 on the kernel (though I never had any
problems) you certainly can't use gcc-3.0 to compile a kernel with. So I
wonder if all those cautions are coming from people being over-cautious or
there are real problems somewhere. If so I'd like to know how I can duplicate
problems and kernel crashes and system crashes that run glibc-2.2 and was
compiled with gcc-2.95.2
This isn't an attack or rant against you Jesse. I'm just thinking out loud.
I'm just wondering; there must be some kind of benchmark to determine whether
a glibc is stable enough to use or not. Simply having gcc-2.95.3 or gcc-3.0
does not warrant a stable system, but if i can't see a difference in
"stableness" when I run gcc-2.95.2 or gcc-3.0 I can't help but wonder
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
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