On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Andrew Benton wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
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
Ken Moffat wrote:
Were you using glibc-20050926, or glibc-2.3-20050926 ? Oh, and did you
definitely include the bash avoid_WCONTINUED patch ?
I started with glibc-20050912 and I've been updating it with cvs every Sunday
(I know how to have fun on my day off..). Yes, I definitely used the
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Andrew Benton wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Were you using glibc-20050926, or glibc-2.3-20050926 ? Oh, and did you
definitely include the bash avoid_WCONTINUED patch ?
I started with glibc-20050912 and I've been updating it with cvs every Sunday
(I know how to have fun on
Matthew Burgess wrote:
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
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
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
Richard A Downing wrote:
My preference is to continue with gcc-4 and a known good snapshot for
svn. 20050905 seems to have a head of steam.
Yes. This is exactly what I would like to see.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
On 9/18/05, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Archaic wrote:
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 ;) )
I am with
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
