Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 20:30 CST: > Greg Schafer wrote: >>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20003 >> >>Despite the title of that PR, the problem is not related to timeouts AFACT. > > Thanks for this. Also, I've just noticed that Randy has the same FAILs > in his build as well, so it's not isolated to the lfs-alphabetical > branch. Wish I had noticed that earlier. :/
I've not paid too much attention to this alphabetical thing, as I feel it isn't a good thing, and is throwing changes in for really no good reason at all. I've read the bug and there's nothing in there that gives a good reason. Then Matt earlier mentioned, "at least we'll have a good answer for folks that ask why we have the build order as we do". However, the build order is good now. It is known to work. If folks ask, "How did you come up with this build order", the answer is simply, "This order is known to build successfully". What more needs to be said? Anyway, best I can remember, I thought I read where you guys weren't changing the order of the toolchain packages. If so, what does gcc errors (libmudflap problems) have to do with anything? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 20:39:00 up 61 days, 6:03, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.07, 0.25 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
