On 26-04-2015 14:14, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 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.
One more thing: the objective is to tag for gcc-5. If someone with lfs 7.7 and gcc-5 has a different result from somebody else with recent SVN, it would be probably another problem of 7.7 or SVN, not gcc-5. Thus, it is still better having both. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
