Time to make the gcc move?

Simon Geard delgarde at ihug.co.nz
Mon Mar 20 03:03:15 PST 2006

On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 00:30 -0700, Peter B. Steiger wrote:
> For years, I have avoided gcc 4 because it sounds like it's more trouble
> than it's worth.  Many lfs/blfs instructions involve applying a patch to
> the source that will resolve gcc 4 issues, and that suggests to me that
> (some? most?) Linux source was still designed with gcc 3 in mind.

There are still some libraries and programs that while often necessary,
haven't been updated. Things like glib 1.2 for example - it's a pre-req
for a number of libraries, but it's no longer supported by the
developers (last release was in 2002). Or cdparanoia, needed by many
media apps, but not updated in the last 5 years.

That said, the number of patches still needed is pretty small - most of
mine are for media libraries that are probably considered
feature-complete and therefore no longer maintained. Some of them might
have been updated since I last looked - it's been a while since I
checked up on them all.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-support/attachments/20060320/2cf7c0dc/attachment.sig>

More information about the blfs-support mailing list