Am Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2014, 14:36:44 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: > >>> Do we really need glibc 2.9_p20081201-r3, 2.10.1-r1, 2.11.3, 2.12.1-r3, > >>> 2.12.2, 2.13-r2, 2.14, 2.14.1-r2, 2.14.1-r3, 2.15-r1, 2.15-r2, 2.15-r3, > >>> 2.16.0, 2.17, 2.18-r1, 2.19, 2.19-r1, and 2.20? > >> > >> I can't fully speak to this as I'm not familiar. But are you? > > > > No, I'm not. Which is why I am asking. I'm happy to learn. > > Shall I google that for you? j/k Here are the change logs -> > http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ There are always some big ticket > items ...
Hehe, yeah I dont doubt that a lot is changing. :) And probably more will come. I'm more concerned about the active maintaining / testing with current software of the old versions, but then since I'm not the one maintaining them... > And how would someone running 4.9 get to 3.4? [...] > The general testing rule for compiling gcc with gcc is two > versions back/forwards --- Ryan can correct me if he was doing something > different, but thats' what I've done for ages. So you really need to > keep that chain 4.8 -> 4.7 -> 4.6 ... -> 3.3 going. True, that's a valid point for keeping a "stepladder" of old gcc versions down to the earliest version that you want to keep. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde) dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
