Tushar Teredesai wrote:
I am with Archaic. If the stable releases of some packages (especially something as critical as glibc) are not gcc4 ready, perhaps we have been hasty in upgrading to gcc4?
I know you placed emphasis on glibc, but waiting for all packages to release gcc4 compatible versions is just not sensible - kbd, inetutils are likely to take a very long time, given their current time since last release. I also have my doubts about tar, although util-linux looks very promising. As to the bugs that Jeremy mentioned, noone has seen them on the straight x86->x86 builds that LFS is currently focusing on, and therefore I don't see a problem with our current approach. gcc-4.x/patched glibc-2.3.5 based LFS builds have proven stable for a fair number of people, so I personally don't think it's worth the effort to either a) Go back to gcc-3.4.x or b) Introduce a potentially unstable glibc snapshot.
If someone wants to contact Roland McGrath to see what the anticipated release schedule is for 2.3.6 (http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=852 shows two outstanding bugs, both of which require a backport of a fix already on HEAD), that's fine with me. Like I said though, I'm more than happy with the stability/performance of the current toolchain, so would much prefer to stick with it.
Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
