On Sat, Oct 04, at 03:25 DJ Lucas wrote: > 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.
Thanks. > > 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. There are no libc versions anymore, just random snapshots. > 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. But now (with this change), we are loosing one year's work, a very stable book and very good combinations (we could release it - nobody asked in the lists for a (volunteer) release manager or a volunteer to maintain the ex(now)-development branch (maybe also to backport fixes)). We are going to need a lot of more time now to stabilize the 4.3* branch and to release it. And I am not sure if releases matters anymore for LFS, really. And on top of that we will always have BLFS mismatch LFS; there is a long interim between LFS releases and BLFS releases - in that (interim) time there is no blfs development to match the LFS dev-book). Unless of course if we want to spread all around the Blfs book "if" statements. Why not, I wouldn't mind to do that? Greg is doing it all the time to provide instructions for multi toolchain combinations. > 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? ;-) I wouldn't count Fedora for a pointer. They always go ahead, so you can look however in Debian for a fair comparison. They will ship with the latest 4.2.4. In any case we are not (for now) a distribution and the usual contest doesn't apply for us (we are an exception in Linux universe, because we are (mostly) interested about education); so with few words there was no reason for the jump. You could always create a new branch, or the other way around, anyway. A question in any case would be appropriate; if there was no interest, then by all that means, you could go ahead, with my wishes. > -- DJ Lucas Regards, Ag. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
