Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/20/05 11:01 CST: > So saving some time on the gcc compile without a change in the end > results is beneficial, right? :))
Tush, this will be my last message on this subject. You know my stance. And from what I gather, Bruce feels the same way. We don't *know* that the end result will be the same. There are many times when the LFS SVN version, and the BLFS svn version of GCC do not match. I remember the last version when LFS used 3.4.3 of GCC. BLFS didn't update until we were ready to do a pre-release. Many *months* went by before we updated. Not that this is really relevant, but if someone were to follow the book, when the versions don't match, it's a good thing we do the bootstrap, at the expense of a few minutes. We field questions all the time where folks use LFS-6.1 and then use BLFS SVN to install certain packages. In fact, I think it would be rather common that folks that want to upgrade their GCC would use the BLFS instructions to do so. I simply don't agree that we can assume the end result would be the same. You disagree. So be it. Better safe than sorry when it comes to messing with the toolchain. As I said in my initial message on this subject, if it were *any* other package, I would agree with you. But this isn't *any* other package. It is an important cog in the toolchain, and the only one BLFS has instructions for. So, we make it as foolproof as possible. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 11:05:01 up 171 days, 10:38, 3 users, load average: 0.99, 0.64, 0.32 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
