Neal Murphy wrote these words on 10/26/10 10:32 CST: > I really don't understand the resistance to changing > "GCC now requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC packages. As these packages > may not be included in your host distribution, they will be built > with GCC:" > to something like > "GCC requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC libraries. Because they may > not be included in your host distribution, they must be built as > part of GCC. Be sure to unpack their tarballs within the GCC > source directory (review chapter 5.3)."
As I tried to convey, I was not trying to defend the rationale for the way the information is written in the book. I was simply trying to show the thought process of the original drafters of the book. I have no thoughts either way if it is written right or wrong. I see both sides of the issue. One side is that it becomes obvious that readers are skipping sections of the book, causing them to become confused. Learning to read and comprehend everything is an important tool in the knowledge gaining process. On the other hand, I see the issue with users stumbling in the same place and there is perhaps something that could be done about it. In fact, I like the change you have written above. It is simple and not redundant, yet tips readers to go back and review the relevant material. Thanks for your input, Neal. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:15:00 up 2:24, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.13, 0.09 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
