which revisions should I use

Jeff Surgeson linux at herbasource.com
Mon Jul 21 05:26:46 PDT 2003


Ulrich Fahrenberg wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Declan. Moriarty wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:21:28AM +0100, Jeff Surgeson enlightened us
>>thusly
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>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).
>
>See also
>
>	http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/#why-not-version
>
>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
>very closely).
>
>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
>
>  
>
Thanks I must say I got a bit confused with two very different points of 
views but I get the point, stick with the book!
One question though you say gcc3.* , would I be safe then to use 3.2.2 
as apposed to 3.2.1 as advised in the book.

-- 
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 mailing list