On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 10:14 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> We could, but we refer to the first build. I wouldn't think that this
> change is necessary. However, I didn't think the change to pass 1 was
> unclear either. The change already made was to prevent users from
> assuming things that were
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 21:23 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Yes. We've had enough posts of people reading too much into these
>> instructions. I've added some clarifying text. Let's see if that is
>> enough.
>
> For me, I think the important detail is that we extract these p
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 21:23 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Yes. We've had enough posts of people reading too much into these
> instructions. I've added some clarifying text. Let's see if that is
> enough.
For me, I think the important detail is that we extract these packages
here, so that the GC
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 15:54 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> If you are referring to the tar commands in section 5.5.1, what is not
>> clear? There is no chdir command before the tar commands. Section 5.3
>> clearly says:
>>
>> b. Change to the directory created when the packag
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 15:54 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If you are referring to the tar commands in section 5.5.1, what is not
> clear? There is no chdir command before the tar commands. Section 5.3
> clearly says:
>
> b. Change to the directory created when the package was extracted.
> c. Fol
Brett Mahar wrote:
>> What we are doing is creating gmp/, mpfr/, mpc/ directories
>> _within_ the gcc directoriy. We do this because any host using a
>> version of gcc older than 4.5 will NOT have all of these required
>> programs, so we will build them in to the temporary gcc.
> This is where
Brett Mahar wrote these words on 10/26/10 19:04 CST:
> Section 5.3 contradicts 5.5.
> Hence confusion.
Only if you read too much into things. Think about it. The instructions
say to unpack the package tarball. If one cannot determine that the
package tarball means the package listed in the header
On 27 October 2010 06:54, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Brett Mahar wrote:
>
>> I read all sections of the book through twice before starting.
>> I did not skip any sections.
>> I have a fine command of the English language, it is the only language I
>> speak.
>> It is not clear.
>
> What is not clear? T
Brett Mahar wrote:
> I read all sections of the book through twice before starting.
> I did not skip any sections.
> I have a fine command of the English language, it is the only language I
> speak.
> It is not clear.
What is not clear? The book? I'm willing to clarify text in the book,
but n
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:33:58AM +1000, Brett Mahar wrote:
>
> If you disagree, do not bother replying.
Less of that attitude, please.
I'm *not* commenting on the discussion itself. These lists are
all about discussion. Often, the book gets better as a result -
but it can take a long time,
On 10/26/10 08:32, Neal Murphy wrote:
>
> Randy, you are correct. The information is all there. It probably works well
> for someone with a keen grasp of written English and someone who is already
> familiar with the build process.
>
> But the book is still wrong because it does not clearly and e
On 26 October 2010 23:37, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 7:09 AM, Brett Mahar wrote:
>> I agree, there is no way that I could figure that out from reading the
>> book.
>
> Then you failed to read Section 5.3 "General Compilation Instructions".
> This has been discussed many times, and it ha
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
> "
On Tuesday 26 October 2010 09:37:01 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 7:09 AM, Brett Mahar wrote:
> > I agree, there is no way that I could figure that out from reading the
> > book.
>
> Then you failed to read Section 5.3 "General Compilation Instructions".
> This has been discussed many times
On 10/26/2010 7:09 AM, Brett Mahar wrote:
> I agree, there is no way that I could figure that out from reading the
> book.
Then you failed to read Section 5.3 "General Compilation Instructions".
This has been discussed many times, and it has always been determined
that we expect readers to actuall
15 matches
Mail list logo
