which revisions should I use
uli at math.auc.dk
Mon Jul 21 04:15:52 PDT 2003
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Declan. Moriarty wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:21:28AM +0100, Jeff Surgeson enlightened us
> > When compiling following the blfs
> > book versions is it 100% essential that I use the revisions of
> > software stated in the books or should I use the latest revisions if
> > there are any?
> I asked this one myself as a newbie. If the instructions for
> package-4.3.7 work when package-4.3.8 is released, the page isn't
> updated. When thay break it is. So don't worry about most things.
> Use the latest of most things. Use the latest glibc and think very
> carefully about gcc, because to judge by the problems, every version
> seems great until they find this weird new problem with it, which the
> next one fixes. They sound more like experimental kernels :-/.
Allow me to disagree with Declan on this.
For the _LFS_ book (which apparently is part of what Declan refers to,
as he is speaking about glibc and gcc), _do_not_deviate_ unless you
have very good reasons and know what you are doing. If you get into
trouble and ask on lfs-sup, you are likely to get flamed (or at least
to get told to go home and restart, this time without deviating).
For the _BLFS_ book, things are different. Usually, for most BLFS
packages, there are no reasons not to use a newer version (but, no
rule comes without exception: if you build GNOME, follow the BLFS book
Executive summary: Follow the LFS book by the letter, but feel free to
deviate from what you read in BLFS.
> An increasing number of people are using 2 versions of gcc.
If I understand matters, the only reason for this is that kernels are
suggested to be compiled with gcc-2.95.3, but for almost everything
else it is better to use gcc-3.*
Uli Fahrenberg -- http://www.math.auc.dk/~uli
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support