Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> Hi
>
> I recall that previous versions of BLFS or LFS (or maybe both)
> recommended installing gcc-2.3.5 in addition to gcc3. I think there
> were a few packages that didn't compile with gcc3, but did with
> gcc-2.3.5 (and I think that was the recommended gcc for Linux 2.4).
> Now that gcc4 is out (and will be in the next LFS stable release), I'm
> wondering--is it necessary (or a good idea, even) to keep a copy of
> some gcc3 version. What about gcc2--is it necessary to keep that
> (assuming we're Linux 2.6)?
gcc-2.3.5 ? No...
With the 2.4 kernels gcc-2.95.3 was required. I have it still.
I never use it. It's basically obsolete except for stale code.
The trick is this: Every gcc version seems to be getting fussier, and
programmers don't change gcc versions as often as we do in many cases.
I have 3.3.1 in this distro, and 3.4.x in the newer one. I don't hit gcc
problems (except for xfig, which wanted about gcc-3.0x). Then there's
usually a patch.
gcc-2.95 hasn't worked on anything in a long time (Options all changed)
so don't bother imho.
--
With best Regards,
Declan Moriarty.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
