On 3/31/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:47:23PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > > > It simply isn't that hard to determine what "required patch" means. > > It is simply a matter of perspective. Technically, the patch isn't a > gcc-3 patch, but rather a C standard compliance patch. I also agree the > patch should be renamed to reflect its new purpose (i.e. fix compile > errors with gcc-4) if for no other reason that mention of gcc3 will > cause some confusion and support questions. The book has had errors in > patch names before and this could easily be thought to be one of them by > many.
I was going to reply earlier in this thread with roughly the same sentiments. I.e., technically it doesn't add anything to change the name, but for support it might. Then I remembered that some people may be using LFS stable which uses gcc-3.4. In that case, changing the name to reflect gcc-4 would cause the same type of support questions from people not applying the patch if they used gcc-3. Possibly the name should be changed to ...-gcc-3.4+-1.patch? It would probably be easiest to follow Randy's line of thinking and let people dig their own graves if they don't want to follow the book. In short, I think the name is accurate and the support issues aren't warranting enough of a name change. My $0.02. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
