gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun May 11 20:27:54 PDT 2003
On May 11, 2003 09:21 pm, Greg Schafer wrote:
> For the record, I am against this.
> Like someone else said (Zack?), just patch the source for the packages
> affected by this silly bug! It seems crazy enabling gcc-2.95.x c++ in the
> book just for this. Maybe stick a reference in the FAQ?
> The hint currently makes a reference to the BLFS instructions and if it
> were up to me, I'd be doing the same in the LFS book.
That is certainly an option of course.
What I thought was that now that we install gcc-2.95.3 anyways, it won't be a
real big issue to install it completely.
I'm talking a purely personal thing here: I like having the 2.95.3 c++
libraries around for those binary only programs that rely on it. I'd hate to
push my personal preference into the book, so for the record I am not opposed
to removing C++ again from the 2.95.3 installation instructions, but I'd like
to see if there aren't more people who use (or could use) 2.95.3's C++ libs.
> If you do decide to leave it in, then for completeness I would also add
Ok then will do.
/* Linux Consultant --- OSDN / DevChannel *
* Technical Writer --- CheapBytes */
/* 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