Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 08/14/05 08:25 CST: > No,my build was based on the cvn of 30 of July with some cosmetic changes by > me but nothing serious to affect the glibc built. > > I already saw that your problem started from Heimdal was overwritten the > glob.h which installed by glibc,but that made me think and probably (still > not sure though) > change my thought in a previous post . > > Maybe a gcc4 BLFS branch as you suggested in your first post,Randy? > And i explain. > > My way to build blfs packages,is through scripts and functions. > The first variable however that my scripts read is the gcc version > variable (thanks to Greg), so depending from the gcc version they follow a > different > profile (different instructions if any,different patches,different > folders,etc ...).
I can't see it happening. For now, I think if we have a source for folks to go and see which packages need patching, this would be enough. Of course, this is only my opinion, but based on the following which you may not be aware of. BLFS has *always* geared its current book to fit a particular version of LFS. I can't see this changing. When the LFS trunk branch is merged to use GCC4, we will update the BLFS book accordingly. There won't be instructions in the book that say "do this if you have XX version of GCC, or do this if you have YY version". So far, I've just seen too few packages that need updates. Heck, you installed over 100, I'm at over 100 (many of which are different than the packages you installed), and there's only been 3-4 that need patching. To me, this simply is not enough change to keep up a branch of the book. Other opinions are most certainly welcome. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 09:02:01 up 134 days, 8:35, 3 users, load average: 0.85, 0.34, 0.17 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
