(no subject)

Henry christenson exvor0 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 13:55:50 PST 2006


A simple grammer change would reslove the issue. here is how it
appears in the book.
 Required Patch (if compiled using GCC-3.4.x)

This tells readers If you are compileing with any varient of gcc 3.4
you need this patch.

all that would need to be done to reslove this from being posted again is.
 Required Patch (if compiled using anything over GCC-3.4.x)




On 3/29/06, Chris Staub <chris at beaker67.com> wrote:
> 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.
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>



More information about the blfs-support mailing list