HLFS-Testing status

Robert Baker bobb at netslyder.net
Thu Sep 28 09:52:57 PDT 2006


Ahhh, that would make plenty of sense. If thats the case then I can 
probably wrap up some of the changes I have made, and do one last build 
to ensure everything flys right. Then once I am satisfied with the 
outcome I can drop what I have on a server for you guys to check out for 
yourselves. I guess I never noticed they had dropped that 
recommendation..Thanks for the heads up.

Alex Merry wrote:

>On Thursday 28 September 2006 15:14, Robert Baker wrote:
>  
>
>>I definately understand your point of view on the kernel versions. I
>>am just wondering if you think there is a good reason not to include
>>the reccommended gcc-2.95.3 for compiling the kernel.If your just
>>saying it should be fine without it I still think we should follow
>>the reccommendations of the kernel devs and use it. Better safe than
>>sory.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know at exactly what point that recommendation went out of date, 
>but it certainly sat in the kernel documentation directory long after 
>it no longer applied. I think it was due to the relative instability of 
>the early gcc 3 series rather than anything else.
>
>Alex :-)
>
>  
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses courtesy of Netslyder, Inc.(http://www.netslyder.net)]




More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list