why gcc-3.1?

Albert Wagner alwagner at tcac.net
Mon May 27 08:57:40 PDT 2002

On Monday 27 May 2002 07:20 am, you wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 11:37:34PM -0500, Albert Wagner wrote:
> > I notice the guru's here all catching errors and making patches just
> > trying
> We only patch up ncurses, perl and vim. And, if you go to those project
> sites you will find development versions and other kind of patches that
> already fixed this gcc-3.1 problem. But, we don't want to upgrade ncurses,
> perl and vim to the latest development snapshot, so instead what we did is
> get those patches and extract only the gcc-3.1 fixes from it, while leaving
> the rest of the source intact. This way the package won't be upgraded to
> lastest development but will compile with GCC-3.1
> The next releases of ncurses, vim and perl will all work just fine without
> patches.

So are we going to wait until the base packages work just fine without 
patches?  What about the BLFS packages?  I am sorry if I sound pessimistic; I 
just would like to be convinced.  I am not arguing against 3.1.  I don't know 
enough to make a judgement for or against.  But I would appreciate some 
rational arguments for 3.1.

Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of
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