Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-07 Thread akhiezer
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:30:02 -0500 > From: Bruce Dubbs > To: BLFS Development List > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > > akhiezer wrote: > > > At any given time, the lame page is essentially only referencing one > > particular versio

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Bruce Dubbs
akhiezer wrote: At any given time, the lame page is essentially only referencing one particular version of gcc. If it needs a patch for 4.9.0, and then gcc goes to 4.9.1 in lfs, that means that the lame page is now out-of-sync with lfs: and when the lame page gets updated - whether same/new lame

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread akhiezer
> From: Christopher Gregory > To: blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org > Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 04:11:46 +1200 > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > > On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:15 +0100, akhiezer wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:39:40 +0200 >

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Christopher Gregory
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:15 +0100, akhiezer wrote: > > Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:39:40 +0200 > > From: "Armin K." > > To: BLFS Development List > > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > > > > > . > > > . > > >

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread akhiezer
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:54:47 +0200 > From: "Armin K." > To: BLFS Development List > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > > On 08/06/2014 04:15 PM, akhiezer wrote: > > [post removed because of personal insults] The post was dealing in

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Fernando de Oliveira
I thought a long time, took a bath thinking, and believe that have just found a solution in revision 13843. Thanks you all for the discussion, particularly, Christopher, from systemd branch. Particularly, I would do differently, but tried again to please everybody: accepting Christopher's plead,

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Armin K.
On 08/06/2014 04:15 PM, akhiezer wrote: > [post removed because of personal insults] To akhiezer: Please leave personal insults out of this. For the sake of this mailing list, I'll admit that I was wrong and let it be as it is. You win. Please don't reply to the part below. To everyone that's

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread akhiezer
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:39:40 +0200 > From: "Armin K." > To: BLFS Development List > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > > > . > > . > >> > >> If (new) compiler restrictions/rules caused an error

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Armin K.
On 08/06/2014 02:44 PM, akhiezer wrote: >> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:33:53 +0200 >> From: "Armin K." >> To: BLFS Development List >> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc >> > . > . >> >> If (new) compiler restri

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread akhiezer
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:33:53 +0200 > From: "Armin K." > To: BLFS Development List > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > . . > > If (new) compiler restrictions/rules caused an error, then it will be a > problem with any l

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Armin K.
On 08/06/2014 02:03 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > On 06-08-2014 08:30, Armin K. wrote: >> On 08/06/2014 01:23 PM, Christopher Gregory wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions? >>> >>> On the lame page it has: >>> >>> First, if you are using i686

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Fernando de Oliveira
On 06-08-2014 08:55, akhiezer wrote: >> From: Christopher Gregory >> To: blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org >> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 23:23:59 +1200 >> Subject: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc >> >> Hello, >> >> Would it be possible to pleas

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Fernando de Oliveira
On 06-08-2014 08:30, Armin K. wrote: > On 08/06/2014 01:23 PM, Christopher Gregory wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions? >> >> On the lame page it has: >> >> First, if you are using i686 and gcc-4.9.0, fix a compile problem: >> >> This signals that

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread akhiezer
> From: Christopher Gregory > To: blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org > Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 23:23:59 +1200 > Subject: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc > > Hello, > > Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions? > > On the lame page it ha

Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Armin K.
On 08/06/2014 01:23 PM, Christopher Gregory wrote: > Hello, > > Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions? > > On the lame page it has: > > First, if you are using i686 and gcc-4.9.0, fix a compile problem: > > This signals that it is only for that version of gcc, which i

[blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc

2014-08-06 Thread Christopher Gregory
Hello, Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions? On the lame page it has: First, if you are using i686 and gcc-4.9.0, fix a compile problem: This signals that it is only for that version of gcc, which is not the case as it also applies to 4.9.1. So if gcc-4.9.x was used