Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 10/11/05 15:52 CST:
>
>
>>Take tongue out of cheek. We are FAR better at keeping our
>>documentation up to date than the Kernel Developers who would rather
>>introduce a 'really neat bit of new code' than document the bloody
>>import
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:02, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 10/11/05 15:52 CST:
> > Take tongue out of cheek. We are FAR better at keeping our
> > documentation up to date than the Kernel Developers who would rather
> > introduce a 'really neat bit of new code'
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 10/11/05 15:52 CST:
> Take tongue out of cheek. We are FAR better at keeping our
> documentation up to date than the Kernel Developers who would rather
> introduce a 'really neat bit of new code' than document the bloody
> important stuff they wrote last yea
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> True, but strangely the linux-2.6.14-rc4/README says
>>
>>> COMPILING the kernel:
>>>
>>> - Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available.
>>
>>
>>
>> Serves me right for looking. I haven't installed gcc-2.95 for a long time
>
>
> Andrew, you do real
--- Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> > True, but strangely the linux-2.6.14-rc4/README says
> >
> >> COMPILING the kernel:
> >>
> >> - Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available.
> >
> > Serves me right for looking. I haven't installed gcc-2.95 for a long time
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 10/11/05 14:33 CST:
> True, but strangely the linux-2.6.14-rc4/README says
>
>>COMPILING the kernel:
>>
>> - Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available.
>
> Serves me right for looking. I haven't installed gcc-2.95 for a long time
Yes, the kernel docs are way out
Andrew Benton wrote:
True, but strangely the linux-2.6.14-rc4/README says
COMPILING the kernel:
- Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available.
Serves me right for looking. I haven't installed gcc-2.95 for a long time
Andrew, you do realise that us LFSers know far better than the kernel
dev
Randy McMurchy wrote:
That used to be the case, before NPTL came along. You cannot build
current (or even recent stable) versions of LFS using a kernel
generated by GCC-2.95.3.
True, but strangely the linux-2.6.14-rc4/README says
COMPILING the kernel:
- Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 availa
Nicholas Capitelli wrote these words on 10/11/05 13:00 CST:
> Just my 2 cents but isnt gcc-2.95.3 recommended by the
> kernel programmers to build the kernel. Its suppose to
> produce the most stable kernel since the kernel is
> written in C. I think that is definately a good reason
> to install g
--- Declan Moriarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> > Hi
> >
> > I recall that previous versions of BLFS or LFS (or
> maybe both)
> > recommended installing gcc-2.3.5 in addition to
> gcc3. I think there
>
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Brandin Creech wrote:
Now that gcc4 is out (and will be in the
next LFS stable release), I'm wondering--is it necessary (or a good idea,
even) to keep a copy of some gcc3 version. What about gcc2--is it necessary
to keep that (assuming we're Linux 2.6)?
Declan has alrea
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> Hi
>
> I recall that previous versions of BLFS or LFS (or maybe both)
> recommended installing gcc-2.3.5 in addition to gcc3. I think there
> were a few packages that didn't compile with gcc3, but did with
> gcc-2.3.5 (a
Hi
I recall that previous versions of BLFS or LFS (or maybe both) recommended
installing gcc-2.3.5 in addition to gcc3. I think there were a few packages
that didn't compile with gcc3, but did with gcc-2.3.5 (and I think that was
the recommended gcc for Linux 2.4). Now that gcc4 is out (and
13 matches
Mail list logo
