Matthew Burgess wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > >> Hey Everyone, >> >> I've been looking over the new gcc4 book. Currently the instructions >> there have us using glibc-2.3.5 and patching it heavily to work with >> gcc-4.0.1. > > > It's not patched anywhere near as heavily as flex :) > >> I would like to suggest that for this particular book we consider >> using a recent snapshot of glibc HEAD. > > > Well, I'd like us to get systems built with gcc 4 with as few changes to > the rest of the book as possible. At least to start off with. If it > turns out that the combination of glibc-2.3.5+patches and gcc-4.0.1 is > unstable, then yes, we will probably have to move to a Glibc snapshot. > > Regards, > > Matt.
It's never a good idea to patch glibc (IMO), glibc is the core of a system. If the system builds with glibc-HEAD and no patches, then that's what I recommend. Glibc releases are not much better than snapshots anyway. This would seem to make the minumium change to the book too. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
