Just a thought that popped into my head
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 7 04:43:21 PDT 2002
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 04:16:42AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> Is there a pressing reason to LEAVE 2.95.3 ?
No. But there was no pressing reason for us to move towards glibc-2.2.5,
binutils-2.12, gawk and all the other latest things.
In fact, there was never a _pressing_ reason to even move beyond the
initial software versions used in LFS-HOWTO-1.0
My policy is this and most of us know this: when a new package is
available, we upgrade unless it's severely broken and should not be used
under any circumstances. My policy is that if _you_ have a pressing reason
not to upgrade, then don't upgrade. But don't stop progress because of one
or two people not liking a particular version. It's not that you're require
to upgrade to gcc-3.1.
> and for the 'real evidence', read the gcc mailinglist. gcc 3 is up to 20% slower than 2.95.x in some cases, and not significantly faster in any others.
Exactly, _some_ cases. What cases are they? I'm not going to read through a
year's worth of email archives at GCC. I don't have the time. You come up
with some URL's and I'll be more than happy to read them.
My system is a lot _more_ responsive and _faster_ since I reinstalled every
package using gcc-3.0.4 compared to gcc-2.95.3. That's my evidence. KDE2
(and later KDE3) actually run smoothly for a change (and no guys, this was
tested before I upgraded to my P4, all tested on my old Celeron 533).
> I think the 'significant case' here was mplayer, making some poor sods machine too slow for DVD playback, whilst 2.95.3 was just fast enough...
That I cannot comment on as I don't have a DVD player. Define "poor sod"
machine. Again if that's a minority from what most LFS'ers use, it's
probably not going to be noticed.
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
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