On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:52:58 -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
snip
I assume that you're referring to the two entries that i wrote.
Yes, those are the ones. Thanks for writing them and for responding so
promptly to my post.
As far as
gcc is concerned, yes its that easy. Its damn hard to wreck
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:34:02 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
snip
Thanks for responding Kurt.
As the Llama wrote, you'd be hard-pressed to toast a running system just
by upgrading GCC - the default installation procedure installs the new
one into /usr/local, which keeps it from becoming the system
On 08/02/03 01:25, Geoff wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:52:58 -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
As far as
gcc is concerned, yes its that easy. Its damn hard to wreck your box by
not building gcc right.
I can see that the build itself should be straighforward. I had, in fact,
successfully compiled gcc
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:25:43 +0100
Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ most of discussion snipped ]
... In particular I have read that
gcc 2.x and 3.x are C++ binary incompatible. I may be wrong (which is
why I am asking questions), but I understand this to mean that I may,
for example, have
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 08:23:43 -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
Yes, you are likely to encounter all of the above, and no, there is no
quick fix. I do have a permanent solution to offer: install gentoo. I
have nothing against LFS - a perfectly fine distro, and a good learning
experience, but
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:07:01 -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
snip
Kurt is definitely much more of an expert on this than I. I also
remember reading about this, but haven't yet run into it. This is just
one of those forward looking issues that i've yet to experience. There
are no backward
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:21:22 +0100
Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I decided it was Gentoo or LFS and I actually
installed Gentoo first. I could see all the advantages, yet the very
convenience of e-builds again left me feeling that I was not fully in
control and would not learn as much as I
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:21:22 +0100
Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not that I mind rebuilding LFS / BLFS itself,
but the hours of post-installation fine-tuning will be a pain - I
should have kept better notes as I went along.
That's one of the strong points of gentoo. I started out
Hello,
In spite of 5 years in linux, I am new to sxs and to this ng. I found you
because I was Googling for information on upgrading gcc and glibc, and I
found the excellent guidance at http://www.opq.se/sxs/index2.html. I have
also just found a couple of posts on the topic here.
I run LFS 3.3,
On 08/01/03 13:51, Geoff wrote:
Whenever I have looked into this topic in the past I have become lost and
depressed in a mass of postings in other places warning about binary
incompatibilities, the need to recompile most or all of my libraries, the
danger of hosing my system entirely .. etc. In
Quoth Geoff:
[...]
I run LFS 3.3, which I installed last year (gcc 2.95.3 / glibc 2.2.5). My
system is very nicely sorted and up-to-date, except for the fact that gcc
and glibc have obviously moved on.
Yup.
Whenever I have looked into this topic in the past I have become lost and
11 matches
Mail list logo
