Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I'm inclined to drop the text about the separate tarballs and just keep
it to the one full package.
Sounds sensible enough.
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
TheOldFellow wrote:
Most people will eventually need the full gcc. I've never used the core
package.
I used to, just for the sake of speeding up my build (not all that much
on newer systems, I know). But as I'm thinking about it more and more,
I'm inclined to drop the text about the separate tar
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hi Again,
> So. Any ideas on how best to work around this one? Shall we alter the
> patch? Or, shall we drop the suggestion to unpack just the core tarball?
Most people will eventually need the full gcc. I've never used the core
package.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.o
Hi Again,
Wanted to get some opinions about what should be done here. There is a
patch that's applied to gcc in the Cross-LFS book,
gcc-3.4.3-posix-1.patch. The instructions for the gcc-static build
there, as per LFS history, mention that only the gcc-core tarball is
necessary since we're not
