On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:41:04AM -0400, Wayne Sallee wrote: > On 09/13/2016 05:12 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:40:33AM +1000, Samuel Tyler wrote: > > > Ok, I understand all this. So what happens (for example) if I have > > > installed GCC 6.1.0 and I want to upgrade to GCC 6.2.0. If I was not to > > > rebuild the entire system, and I just ran the configure make make install > > > commands in the book, would it _entirely_ replace GCC 6.1.0? > > > > > Please do not top post. > > > > As with most package upgrades, things are left behind unless you > > specifically remove them afterwards. > > > > In most cases, this is not a problem. If '/' is comparatively small, > > after doing some upgrades of big packages you might need to clear out > > some of the things left behind so that you have enough space. > > > > What it _will_ do is replace the executables, the libraries in > > /usr/lib, and the info files and manpages. > > > > The things left behind are in the versioned directories in: > > /usr/include/c++/ > > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/ > > /usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/ > > /usr/share/ > > > > ĸen > > Do you prefer to install over, with gcc, or uninstall, then install? > Neither - I very rarely need a newer version of gcc (as I think I said, my svn versions of the books only normally get used for short periods, and the releases which I keep are usually only in "main" use until the next release.
If I'm building an svn (or pre-svn, to try a newer part of the toolchain) version of LFS, it's always a fresh start - even if (occasionally) they go nowhere. If you want to want to update gcc there should be no problem - just build it. Some people keep several versions around for build tests with newer snapshots, but in that case it might be better to give each its own prefix so that you can easily control which one is first on the PATH. And in LFS, 'make uninstall' is often a very bad idea : for some packages/versions it might not have had a lot of testing and could conceivably remove more than you expected. And for gcc, I think the risk of breaking something if you uninstall the existing gcc just before installing the new one [ i.e. after make ] is not worth the risk. ĸen -- `I shall take my mountains', said Lu-Tze. `The climate will be good for them.' -- Small Gods -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
