akhiezer wrote:
At any given time, the lame page is essentially only referencing one
particular version of gcc. If it needs a patch for 4.9.0, and then gcc
goes to 4.9.1 in lfs, that means that the lame page is now out-of-sync with
lfs: and when the lame page gets updated - whether same/new lame version,
but against gcc-4.9.1 - if the patch is not needed then you remove the
comment; and if the patch is still needed then you bump the comment to ref
gcc-4.9.1 ; and if you somehow for some reason want to mention that the
patch has been needed for 4.9.0 as well as still now for 4.9.1, then fine,
but it's a secondary consideration.
Therefore, the 'problem' of 'having' to update, is a non-problem: you
_want_ to update anyway. What you/Christopher seem to be mooting, is to
intentionally add essentially cruft to page(s).
Jumping into the middle here. I haven't read the whole thread yet, but
I think you guys are discussing svn. When we release the stable
version, then the stable gcc is appropriate. And yes, we intend to
check every package of both lfs and blfs before a stable release.
That said, it may be appropriate to say "... with some versions of gcc."
Is the problem due to the package or is it due to gcc? If it's a bug in
gcc, 4.9 and 4.9.1 may cause the problem, but it might get fixed in
4.9.2. We certainly can't check every package with multiple versions of
gcc.
Is the problem due to a bug in the package that isn't identified until
some version of gcc highlights it? Possibly.
The only thing that's really important is to say that we found a problem
and that this sed or patch or other procedure fixes it.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
