Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Wed May 8 11:58:26 PDT 2002

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 06:02:10PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> A week sounds very short to find problems with a compiler. I'd have

It may sound short but it depends on how much time you spend a day testing.
A week @ 12 hours a day doing nothing but LFS related tests gives you a lot
of time to do a lot of work. Sure I can work two hours a day and take 3
months but the end result will be pretty much the same (numbers wise).

> thought at least a fortnight of MANY people bashing it would be thge
> minimum (obviously this is at least a little subjective)

Look at what's in Bugzilla. All that needs to be dealt with for LFS-4 - I'm
guessing at least 3 months.
> And, out of interest, what do you consider a 'test' ?

For starters: build LFS, build another LFS from that new LFS, build a full
workstation with all bells and whistles and everything working.
> or spending weeks trying every feature of a program just in case?

Probably not all of them, but surely most of them. I don't take tests
lightly. I'm either extremely thorough (or try to be), or I don't bother at
all (what's the point with a half-done test).

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list