On 30 January 2012 09:52, Richard Guenther wrote: > If we discourage from separately installing these libraries, who will do > the required in-tree-bootstrap testing before a release on the Hosts > we care for?
My patch doesn't actually discourage it (although my new wiki page does, as it's meant for the less experienced who are installing or building gcc for the first time.) My patch just reorders the options so that the method that is almost guaranteed to work comes before the suggestion that requires reading and understanding complete sentences. People who don't read the paragraph to the end will find what they need and will stop reporting bugs and asking for help on the gcc-help list because they can't RTFM. I don't think the people who fail to bootstrap because they don't understand the runtime linker are the same people who provide useful feedback about build issues and incompatibilities with new versions of the support libs. > Can we at least recommend using the OS vendors versions of the > libraries in case they match our minimum (not recommended) version > requirements? Is our in-tree build support robust enough against > newer/older OS vendor installed copies? Arguably the minimum versions are recommended by "Newer versions may work in some cases, but it's safer to use the exact versions documented." I will revise the patch to suggest vendor-supplied versions first, then in-tree, then finally using --with-gmp (which is the method that causes the most frequently asked questions)
