--- Declan Moriarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > -- > Just my 2 cents but isnt gcc-2.95.3 recommended by the kernel programmers to build the kernel. Its suppose to produce the most stable kernel since the kernel is written in C. I think that is definately a good reason to install gcc-2.95.3.
Nick http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
