Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 26/04/2015 00:24, Douglas R. Reno a écrit :
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.
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.
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.
I would prefer to only use the gcc5 tag. That will make the xml a bit easier to
update when we do the next release. If the package is tested using gcc5 under
LFS svn or 7.7 really doesn't make much of a difference, at least right now. If
glibc or binutils is updated, it may make a difference.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
