Matthew Burgess wrote: > TheOldFellow wrote: > >> However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down. >> And I only have i686 boxes :-( > > > This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to.
I bet my skin is tougher than yours! But, if you don't > like the length of time it takes to get new technology into LFS then > post *patches* to the XML book sources, not scripts :) But that means I have to make all that xml stuff work first! :-) Seriously, I'm not quite at that point yet, but I'll will get there soon. > Additionally, the script you posted does more than just bumps gcc up to > version 4.0.0, there's some other build changes in there too. Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a dicussion. I do not propose that you just copy the script - the LFS aims are quite different from Greg's - no reason you can't examine them for good ideas though. To make > things easier to review and to understand and assess the impact of, I > much prefer seeing scripts/patches/discussions on one specific topic at > a time. I'm not saying the other changes won't be useful and/or > necessary, just that they are probably/possibly orthogonal to upgrading > the compiler. Good point. I accept that. There were two points that I wanted you to take on board: 1) The dumpspecs/-specs= approach, even for gcc-3X. 2) Getting rid of the 'keep binutils sources around' which so confuses the newbies. > IIUC, the only thing that is required to bump gcc up to 4.0.0 is deal > with the lack of a specs file (-dumpsecs resolves that one) and the > patches dealing with invalid C rejected by the new compiler. I'm > willing to be proved wrong on this though, of course :) The issue isn't just dumpspecs but also how you feed the altered specs back to the compiler. There are remarkably few packages that need patching as far as I found. I'm making a list. Some major projects are already releasing gcc-4-ready versions, gtx+/glib last week for instance, because Fedora Core 4 is driving them. But I think your analysis is broadly correct. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
