Just a thought that popped into my head

Richard rgollub at uninet.com.br
Mon May 6 18:57:37 PDT 2002

Gerard Beekmans wrote:

< snipped from top up to here... >

> of failures) I may consider not adding gcc-3 to the book. But, based on
> personal experiences it's not so bad as people may make it sound.

	I can second that experience. I have been stress-testing a full LFS
build plus all the trivial "beyond stuff" (X-4.2.0, Qt-3.0.3, KDE-3.0,
apache-1.3.22, samba-2.2.3a, cups-1.1.14, mail server, fax server, just
to name the main ones), compiled exclusively/entirely with gcc-3.0.4,
and, so far did not have a fault that could not be attributed to coding
inadequacies of the very offending program itself. Surely, my
environment does not demand "professional" standard from the system, as
it is just a small home-based network of desktops, but, considering the
overall stable behaviour/reliable response, so far obtained, I will very
soon gladly replace my previous set-ups of all other machines by this

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list