On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: > > > > > >>So that's why I never saw it. I simply don't have the time or resources > >>to do a full rebuild every time a package gets upgraded. > >> > > > > Hmm, now I've seen your comment that you hadn't built it all. > > On the contrary, my comment said that I *did* build e2fsprogs-1.37 and > *did* run 'make check' on it. My build environment was such that the > bug wasn't triggered though. > I meant your comment in the earlier mail when you announced the branch. If I'd noted that at the time, I would have been less surprised.
> > gcc-4 shouldn't pose too many problems - it's just a package upgrade > albeit with slightly wider effects than most other upgrades. multi-arch > and cross-lfs will pose more of a problem with regard to testing on > those hosts and targets, but that is up to those with such hardware to > deal with IMNSHO. > It's gcc-4 that scares me for the first two or three months (looking at the bigger BLFS picture more than LFS). Some packages will be actively maintained and just need upgrading, some won't have any problems, but I worry how many other old but useful packages will break. But then, I still don't understand why we moved on from egcs-2.91.66 ;) Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
