GCC 3.x Pro's & Cons

Mark Hymers markh at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed May 8 14:30:48 PDT 2002


On Wed, 08, May, 2002 at 07:09:49PM +0200, Marc Heerdink spoke thus..
> Please stop this discussion, it leads us knowhere. I see 8 people for
> including 3.1 asap, 1 against. When we'd wait 6 months for people to do
> intensive testing, 3.1.1 would be released and we'd have to wait again.
Make that 9 people for.

In my mind, the final argument is that adding gcc-3.1 to CVS does in NO
way commit us to using it for the LFS-4 release.  IIRC we did actually
at one point have gcc-3.0 in LFS cvs (shortly after I joined the
project) but it was decided that it wasn't stable enough and we backed
out to gcc-2.95.3 (actually I'm *sure* we had it in CVS as that is why
for a while we had a ncurses patch in the book).

If you build LFS systems from the CVS instructions, you may get burned
occasionally - after all, it is our testbed.  If it all goes horribly
pear-shaped for some unforseen reason, I know Gerard will be the first 
to suggest backing it out before we release another "stable" version of
the book.

All IMO of course ;-)

Mark

-- 
Mark Hymers                                    BLFS Editor
markh at linuxfromscratch.org
-- 
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