(no subject)

Chris Staub 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 
confusing.

> It simply isn't that hard to determine what "required patch" means.



More information about the blfs-support mailing list