(no subject)

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Fri Mar 31 15:31:44 PST 2006

On 3/31/06, Archaic <archaic at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:47:23PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> >
> > It simply isn't that hard to determine what "required patch" means.
> It is simply a matter of perspective. Technically, the patch isn't a
> gcc-3 patch, but rather a C standard compliance patch. I also agree the
> patch should be renamed to reflect its new purpose (i.e. fix compile
> errors with gcc-4) if for no other reason that mention of gcc3 will
> cause some confusion and support questions. The book has had errors in
> patch names before and this could easily be thought to be one of them by
> many.

I was going to reply earlier in this thread with roughly the same
sentiments.  I.e., technically it doesn't add anything to change the
name, but for support it might.  Then I remembered that some people
may be using LFS stable which uses gcc-3.4.  In that case, changing
the name to reflect gcc-4 would cause the same type of support
questions from people not applying the patch if they used gcc-3. 
Possibly the name should be changed to ...-gcc-3.4+-1.patch?

It would probably be easiest to follow Randy's line of thinking and
let people dig their own graves if they don't want to follow the book.
 In short, I think the name is accurate and the support issues aren't
warranting enough of a name change.

My $0.02.


More information about the blfs-support mailing list