chris at beaker67.com
Wed Mar 29 08:33:43 PST 2006
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/28/06 22:16 CST:
>> This was brought up a while back. The patch name needs to be changed
>> to indicate gcc4.
> I'll just have to disagree with your thinking.
> The book says it is a required patch. The patch has been required
> since that version of GCC. Nothing has changed, why does the patch
> name need to change?
> Please, Dan, explain why "Required patch:" in the instructions
> doesn't mean that it is a required patch. If you can logically
> explain this, then we'll have something to go on, otherwise, it is
> just catering to folks that don't/won't/can't interpret the book.
I'm sure everyone understands what "Required" means but the book is
occasionally wrong. The "Required" label could be interpreted by
non-experts as simply being a potential mistake in the book. If a patch
refers to "GCC 3" but the book assumes you have GCC 4 then that can be
> It simply isn't that hard to determine what "required patch" means.
More information about the blfs-support