On 06-08-2014 08:30, Armin K. wrote: > On 08/06/2014 01:23 PM, Christopher Gregory wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions? >> >> On the lame page it has: >> >> First, if you are using i686 and gcc-4.9.0, fix a compile problem: >> >> This signals that it is only for that version of gcc, which is not the >> case as it also applies to 4.9.1. >> >> So if gcc-4.9.x was used this would be clear to people that it is for >> the subsequent minor versions as well. >> >> It would also mean less overall work as the version would not need to be >> changed in the descriptions section until the problem no longer occurs >> due to the effected package being fixed upstream. >> >> Regards, >> >> Christopher. >> > > Simply use 4.9.
Sorry, I disagree. It was intentional, not lack of care. Decided to use explicit versions, because some problems are caused by a particular version and be fixed in the next one. It is easier to grep exactly that version and remove everywhere, when fixed. And it induces a reaction as the present case, so we can fix it. So, I prefer to keep updating the ones that are still needed. With this, we can rack down later on how many versions still needed fixing and when it started. For this case, I thank Christopher and will bump the version. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
