Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, at 02:14 Randy McMurchy wrote: > >> Author: randy >> Date: 2008-10-03 14:14:18 -0600 (Fri, 03 Oct 2008) >> New Revision: 8562 >> -<!ENTITY gcc-version "4.2.3"> >> > > So that means we abandoned the 4.2* branch. > Just for the record, I disagree. > > Noted. > I think we should have a book (branch) for every gcc branch, > a repository structure (something) like: > > 4.2/ > 4.2/lfs > 4.2/blfs > 4.2/live-cd > 4.2/alfs > 4.3/ > 4.3/lfs ... > > There many advantages with this if you think about. > There definitely are advantages. Unfortunately we are lagging pretty far behind. The manpower is just not there. In addition, we should also track gcc with libc versions in your scheme above. If there we were to go backwards and do a release with gcc-4.2.x, then there would be no time to for a gcc-4.3.x or gcc-4.4.x release. By the time BLFS was caught up to gcc-4.2.x, gcc-4.5.x would be either released, or on the horizon. Given the pace of development, not just for LFS but everywhere, this is not uncommon. For a simple comparison to one of the big distros that happens to be fresh in my mind, which Fedora release contained gcc-4.2.x? ;-)
-- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
