Seems me is going to make himself a fool once again... 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? Are crux users supposed to be 'bleeding-edgers'? As for me, it also would be great too have official releases less frequently, say one in 14-16 months (and updating non-toolchain stuff more frequently). Or in case of more frequent ones to create a guide on (double) toolchain rebuild and troubleshooting for each such release. Note, the system is not only core+opt, so (I think) just doing a usual binary upgrade might brake some staff at some point... 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? However it is up to core developers to decide. I'll rely on Your decision. Sorry for off-topic. -- Mikhail Kolesnik ICQ: 260259143 IRC: mike_k at freenode/#crux, rusnet/#yalta Jabber: mike_k@jabber.lafox.net NIC handle: MKK83-UANIC