Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 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
Perhaps adding the comment 'You probably will not need gcc-3.3.x, as very few packages need still it. However if you come across a non-BLFS package that you need to use that requires libstdc++.so.5, then you will need to install gcc-3.3.x for it.' or something like it in better english :-) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
