(no subject)

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Mar 28 18:26:12 PST 2006


Henry christenson wrote these words on 03/28/06 20:06 CST:
> Me using gcc 4 thought i wouldent need the patch because
> of the way its mentioned in the book. 

Thanks for the input, though I'm not really sure there's anything
we'll do about it. The way it is mentioned in the book is:

"Required patch: ..."

I'm not sure what there is we can do to make it more clear that it
is a required patch. The name of the patch should be irrelevant. I
suppose the description part of the patch header could be updated,
but that, to me, is secondary to the book saying that it is a
"required patch".

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
20:21:01 up 3 days, 8:58, 6 users, load average: 0.29, 0.12, 0.19



More information about the blfs-support mailing list