Randy McMurchy wrote: > LFS Trac wrote: > >> #2056: Consider using --disable-shared for gcc pass 1 >> --------------------------------------------+------------------------------- >> Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Type: enhancement | Status: closed >> >> Priority: high | Milestone: 6.4 >> >> Component: Book | Version: SVN >> >> Severity: normal | Resolution: fixed >> >> Keywords: | >> --------------------------------------------+------------------------------- >> Changes (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> >> * status: assigned => closed >> * resolution: => fixed >> >> Comment: >> >> Fixed in r8647. >> > > [Football game over :-) ] > > In my opinion, this puts the objective of releasing the new > version at the end of the month sort of at risk. Perhaps I'm > being too concerned about it, but changing the build of a > toolchain package a couple weeks before release is risky. > I believe that this has been tested pretty well by both Jeremy and Greg and checks OK for my last two jhalfs runs (well into Chapter 6 - having already been replaced by pass 2 gcc). However, if needs be, it can easily be reverted. Remember that this only affects the temporary toolchain until gcc-pass2.
I'd also like to introduce a change to gcc-pass2 that kills the /usr and /lib search dirs. If you think it needs further testing before introduction, we'll decide on that, but IMO, we do have the time if we all keep churning out jhalfs runs (I do hope that you see how valuable jhalfs is now ;-) ). If this last change checks out, I'll be letting it run to completion so that I can begin on the i18n testing/changes and then, later, ICA/Farce runs (which I will definitely need help interpreting). -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
