Just a thought that popped into my head
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 7 04:48:24 PDT 2002
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 04:33:19AM -0700, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> > the compiler is the absolute foundation of the system, and GCC 3.x is KNOWN to be flakey, even to the people writing it, at the moment!
> That has never stopped us before ;)
Right forgot about that one.
I would like to point out us moving to gcc-2.95.3 when everbody was
screaming at us how unstable gcc-2.95.3 is, how you cannot compile kernels
with it, how the kernel and gcc teams say 2.95.3 wasn't really all that
suitable, etc, etc, etc.
Now, that move wasn't all that bad now was it? Thousands upon thousands of
LFS'ers compiled their kernels just fine, compiled their entire systems
just fine and hardly ever any stability problems reported. I've never heard
of anybody so peeved with gcc-2.95.3 that they downgraded to gcc-18.104.22.168
that we were using prior to that.
Same with our glibc-2.0.7 to glibc-2.1.something move.
I've developed a habit of _not_ listening to the 'official' suggestions
from those developing teams. They are most always talking about production
quality, with 99.999% uptime and whatever not. They set extremely high
standards. While that is a good thing of course for the overall project,
we as common folks who do common things on common machines don't need to
abide to those extreme high standards. We can do with less without ever
getting in trouble (see above on the past gcc and glibc moves, then again
our glibc move to 2.2.3, .4 and .5).
-*- 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