Archaic wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:19:28AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>I'm not sure that because there may be some binary version of some >>package out there that needs libstdc++.so.5 is a compelling reason.
> One thing to keep in mind is if the > gcc section is done, there isn't any extra maintenance at this point to > keep it. I tend to agree with this comment. We might as well keep it around for a while--at least a few months--before we pull it out. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
