On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 10:50:25AM +0300, Mikhail Kolesnik wrote:
On Sat, 27 May 2006 01:17:11 +0200 Mark Rosenstand <mark@borkware.net> wrote:
Also, I've been using glibc 2.4 since it was released (shortly before crux 2.2) and have only hit a single problem - details on http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/7195
As for glibc, I'm not to sure what benefits the newer version has, but gcc 4.1 definately have some nice improvements over 4.0.
Hope, these results was mentioned in context of the future development...
Won't it be better to stuck with particular gcc/glibc version during one official crux release life cycle?
I prefer not having the mess around with gcc/glibc every time a new release is out for either one. The reason why I started to appreciate CRUX was because the less critical core software was update while the crucial elements remained untouched unless it was completely necessary to do so.
Are crux users supposed to be 'bleeding-edgers'?
Quoting crux.nu that it is targeted at experience users, my reasoning is as follows: 1) the user may update the system as they wish as long as they keep in mind that they will be by themselves if they break something. 2) The official versions of gcc/glibc should otherwise be followed to have a stable system.
The goal is to have long living, so-called 'rock-solid' system with as little as possible downtime, all binaries built within one toolchain and still get latest software updates. Is it a useless dream?
I agree with that statement, and I do not believe it is a useless dream. My 0,02 EUR on the topic, feel free to disagree. ;)