On May 6, 2016 10:38 AM, "Bruce Dubbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pierre Labastie wrote: > >> Shouldn't we add an entities &gcc6-tested, &gcc6-built and add those to >> the package descriptions when tested? > > > That's a good idea. We did it with gcc5. I'm not sure though that we need to differentiate between built and tested. I'm pretty confident that gcc5_checked is enough. > > <!ENTITY gcc6_built "<para>This package is known to build > properly using the gcc-5 compiler.</para>"> > > When we go through the next release cycle, that would be removed and we check everything then anyway. > > Speaking of the next release, I'm tempted to call it 8.0 using Linus' rationale: it's just time for that. It's been 5 years since 7.0. > > Thoughts? > > -- Bruce > I can agree with calling it 8.0.
Douglas R. Reno
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
