On 26-04-2015 11:13, Pierre Labastie wrote: > Le 26/04/2015 00:24, Douglas R. Reno a écrit : >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'd better begin by checking that nobody objects if I tag things >>> which I built with 5.1.0-RC-20150412 (-rc1) ? >>> >>> [...] So, please don't expect my tagging to be quick ;-) >>> >>> ĸen >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> I am working on an LFS SVN 20150424 system right now with GCC5, so I >> will tag things as I go through my BLFS install as well. I am building >> with GCC-5.1.0 right now. >> >> Douglas R. Reno >> > > I would say it be more accurate to use the lfssvn tag. Excerpt from > general.ent: > --------------- > <!-- usage: <para>&lfssvn_checked;ccyymmdd&lfssvn_checked2;</para> --> > <!ENTITY lfssvn_checked "This package is known to build and work (no > line break here) properly > using an LFS-SVN-"> > <!ENTITY lfssvn_checked2 " platform."> > <!ENTITY lfssvn_built "This package is known to build using an (no > line break here) LFS-SVN-"> > <!ENTITY lfssvn_built2 " platform but has not been tested."> > ---------------- > > And LFS SVN 20150424 implies gcc 5, so the gcc5 tag would be unneeded, > although it would do no harm, of course.
Your next sentence shows that gcc 5 is needed. > I plan to update to gcc 5 directly on blfs, starting from an lfs 7.7 base. So, > anything built afterwards, I'll tag gcc5. > > Hope it is ok too It's OK. I did DESTDIR build gcc-5.1.0 yesterday, and after finishing the gnutls/nettle/pk11 trio, will install it, so, my plan is the same as yours. BTW, I have run the tests (-j1), and can post the log or the summary, so we could compare. Would it be useful for you? It would be useful for me, just to be sure that my build is OK. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
