Hallo,
I assume those first and last were for packages that aren't in BLFS ?
there were also packages from LFS and BLFS which showed that.
Imho it's not directly stemming from changes in glibc but in stricter
gcc checking, more warnings enabled and less assuming what the
programmer wanted to express with his code.
My previous daily driver LFS build was 7.7, and I had one test machine
with 7.10. Then I started again with LFS 8.0 to get my hands on a gcc 7+
to play around with meltdown, spectre etc. fixes. That's where I noticed
gcc had become much stricter in code verification.
Tschau...Thomas
--
"Do you wanna be a legend or a passing footprint on the sands of time?"
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
