>> My first was with LFS-4.1, a year ago last November. >Why on earth would you have built LFS-4.1 a year ago last November? >That was not the current version. In fact, it was very old. No >wonder you had issues building it. >-- >Randy
Don't judge so fast. I had three very good reasons, and my opinion was the only one that counted. (a) I had the CD in hand. (b) I am building for modest classic Pentium class machines and it was, and is, more important to avoid the "creeping featuritis" and code bloat of the latest & greatest in favor of performance and functionality. (c) It was an educational exercise and I didn't really care how modern the resulting system was. I had no major issues with it. It serves its function well--better than the LFS-6.1.1 that cannot compile KDE-3.1 with GCC-3.4.3! A system that works, no matter how archaic, is much better than one that doesn't. And, no, I'm NOT going to install KDE-3.5 and its bloated dependency chain. Paul Rogers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
