TheOldFellow theoldfellow at gmail.com
Mon Apr 25 01:56:45 PDT 2005

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Archaic wrote:
>>On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:19:28AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>>I'm not sure that because there may be some binary version of some
>>>package out there that needs libstdc++.so.5 is a compelling reason. 
>>One thing to keep in mind is if the
>>gcc section is done, there isn't any extra maintenance at this point to
>>keep it.
> I tend to agree with this comment.  We might as well keep it around for
> a while--at least a few months--before we pull it out.
>   -- Bruce

Perhaps adding the comment 'You probably will not need gcc-3.3.x, as
very few packages need still it.  However if you come across a non-BLFS
package that you need to use that requires libstdc++.so.5, then you will
need to install gcc-3.3.x for it.' or something like it in better
english :-)

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list