Randy McMurchy wrote: However, I think you misunderstood > the purpose of my message.
No. I understood it completely, I was just making sure you knew about the link while I thought some more about your ideas. :-) > I'm not so much looking for advice on *how* to get things to build, > I'm more looking for a community decision (branch, whatever) on how > we should go about *presenting* this information to the community. > A branch is the right way. If I understood your plan 'a placeholder in place of the real instructions' in a branch, then many, probably working, packages will be ommitted. Of course, a user could just nip over to 6.1, but why make him bother. Can't we do a blanket 'WARNING not validated for GCC-4 yet - please report success to ...' insert into all package instructions? Essentially, I'm saying the placeholder should be the GCC-3 instructions with a warning. I think you will be surprised by the speed with which GCC-4 will become the mainstream for LFSers. Richard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
