Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ag Hatzim wrote:
I would like to say,with all the respect ... "Freeze the damn thing and both
teams
be ready for a release" :)
I would really like to update glibc and gcc for 6.2. Otherwise we will
be behind the power curve. We don't want to get multiple revisions
behind on these.
-- Bruce
Just to verify, glibc-2.4 and gcc-4.1 for LFS-6.2? If that is decided,
then we add a lot more testing time to delivery date, which I am
definately not against. I'd like to suggest revisiting our own
sanitized kernel headers for the release that contains glibc-2.4 and
gcc-4.1.
I've not used Jim's set for a full build as I'm still targeting
glibc-2.3.6. Both had stated that they target glibc-2.4, but I had good
results with Jurg's set so I stuck with it until I move to glibc-2.4. I
expect similar from Jim's (Not to forget all other contributors who
assisted with both sets, just applying short names). I would not
suggest them for glibc-2.3.6 as both issues I've run into are specific
to the older version of glibc and do not affect glibc-2.4 AFAIK.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
