| 1 |
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:06, Chris Gianelloni spammed: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > The difference in doing from stage1 instead of stage3 is you don't have |
| 4 |
> > to go through a gcc migration to prevent your build from being |
| 5 |
> > unusable. You also go through 1 gcc upgrade (gcc 3.3.5 -> gcc 3.4.4), |
| 6 |
> > not 3 (3.3.5 -> 3.3.6 -> 3.4.4). We are talking reality here, not |
| 7 |
> > fantasy. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You don't have to go through the whole migration to work from a stage3, |
| 10 |
> either. Just because *you* did doesn't mean it is required, in any way. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No you don't. Except for the first time I ran an update immediately after |
| 13 |
it came out and I was, in fact, switched over to the new gcc, in spite of |
| 14 |
what the documentation said. All I did was an emerge -u system. I noticed |
| 15 |
it happened to several other users in the forums as well. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So as long as you are not inadvertently switched over to the new gcc or know |
| 18 |
not to switch over to it without going to the migration guide, everything |
| 19 |
should be peachy. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Will gcc-3.4.4 be required in the 2006.0 profile? |
Archives