| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 2 |
<zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> You are misremembering that we are using preserve_libs to save our butts |
| 4 |
> when mpc is updated and gcc is still linked to the old mpc. I feel very |
| 5 |
> uncomfortable as the recommendation of preserve-libs is to remerge as |
| 6 |
> soon as possible not "build a whole system like this". Is there an |
| 7 |
> actual failure here? Not that I've seen yet, but it's an awkward way to |
| 8 |
> build in my opinion. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Keeping the old libs seems perfectly fine, since it's in a seed stage |
| 11 |
that we don't care about after stage1 is complete. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
An unnecessary build of gcc may not matter much on a relatively fast |
| 14 |
amd64, but it's going to be a pain on a bunch of slower architectures. |
| 15 |
And on mips/multilib it'll be even worse since we get to build the |
| 16 |
libraries for three ABIs. |
Archives