GCC 2.95.3 [LFS/BLFS conflicts]

Tushar Teredesai tushart at abbnm.com
Mon May 12 12:43:08 PDT 2003


Gerard Beekmans wrote:

>We are also trying to do things properly here. The kernel is an important 
>piece of software and if the kernel developers highly recommend gcc-2.95.3, 
>then we should just use it and not leave it to chance. People can of course 
>still decide not to do so, but our instructions in the LFS book should assume 
>gcc-2.95.3 is used, so it should have the installation instructions.
>
>I don't agree that having two compilers is a pain in the arse. It'll be put in 
>/opt so it's out of the way and you don't put it in $PATH unless you really 
>need it. It'll never get in the way. I believe the pro's far outweigh the 
>con's.
>
>The extra time it takes to install it is not of importance to me. LFS takes 
>long as it is, another package really is not that big of a deal. Just skip it 
>if you really want to ;)
>  
>
I don't have any problems with the time or space connected with having 
two compilers on a machine:) But I don't think the instructions should 
be duplicated in two books.

If gcc2 is in the LFS book, then there should be no need to have a gcc2 
section in the BLFS book. Making the compatibility links can be included 
as optional instructions.

(FYI) In the BLFS book, I copied the libs from /opt/gcc2/lib over to 
/usr/lib for two reasons:

   1. Avoiding adding a directory to /etc/ld.so.conf.
   2. Giving the user the flexibility to install only the libraries by
      doing a "rm -rf /opt/gcc2".

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
  E-mail:    tushartATabbnmDOTcom
  Extension: 5267


-- 
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