Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Archaic wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 05:35:54PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >> >>> Again, as I see things, if we want to be using gcc4 we should be >>> doing it correctly and using the code that is meant for it, ie, glibc >> >> >> >> True enough, but snapshots suck. Before doing that, I would vote for >> taking gcc-4 out of trunk so we can continue with gcc-3.4.x and > > > Why? Glibc snapshots especially are known to be working and stable(-ish > ;) ) >
While there is no problem using some 'named' snapshots, there are also times when the snaps are in transit from one level of stability to another. The trick is knowing which is which. ;-) If the book goes with a snapshot, then the editors need to be fairly confident, either by testing or by monitoring the relevant mailing lists and mainline distros, that it's a good 'un. Of course, the svn book could use any snap with a clear caveat. My preference is to continue with gcc-4 and a known good snapshot for svn. 20050905 seems to have a head of steam. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
