On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Andrew Benton wrote:
For what it's worth I built my current LFS with current glibc cvs on Sunday and it doesn't seem unstable at all. I didn't need to patch glibc to build it with gcc-4.0.1. The glibc test suite had three fails, two of them were familiar maths test-double and test-idouble, and one new (well, new to me) c++-types-check. I don't think it was important though, everything compiled fine and has run well for two days.
Well, the snapshot in cross-lfs is surprisingly good, but in general trying to follow glibc CVS is a full-time job for anybody who cares about more than just x86. I haven't built x86 on cross-lfs yet, but if the c++-types-check is a new failure, that would be another reason why trying to follow glibc cvs is often a bad idea (irrespective of whether it's the code or the test program that now fails).
Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
