> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:33:53 +0200 > From: "Armin K." <[email protected]> > To: BLFS Development List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > . . > > If (new) compiler restrictions/rules caused an error, then it will be a > problem with any later version. >
Not really - not for _any_ later version: it's not a _problem_ for downstream/blfs if e.g. lame at some point adjusts its code such that the patch is not needed. > Debian uses gcc-major-minor to indicate that patch fixes a problem that > occours with gcc feature additions/improvements (increased minor version). > Yes, but that all becomes unnecessary if e.g. lame code adjusts such that the patch is not needed at all. If for some reason, the blfs lame page wants to say that a patch is for gcc 4.9.0 & 4.9.1 then sure: but a blfs release is based on a single lfs release, that has a single gcc ver; so such a comment in the blfs lame page - talking about multiple gcc versions - is kindof an aside. > > > > For this case, I thank Christopher and will bump the version. > > > > -- > Note: My last name is not Krejzi. > -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
