On 08/06/2014 02:03 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > 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.
If (new) compiler restrictions/rules caused an error, then it will be a problem with any later version. Debian uses gcc-major-minor to indicate that patch fixes a problem that occours with gcc feature additions/improvements (increased minor version). > > For this case, I thank Christopher and will bump the version. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
