1. cvs lfs was dated Sept 02 while lfs 3.3 dated april 02.

2. The big changes in cvs are the gcc 3.2 and the use of a static directory.

3. Cvs was installed as smooth as lfs 3.3. The difference is it took about 2-3 times much longer.

Is cvs lfs worth to make a change from 3.3? I don't think so since the one major change was gcc 3.2 but the older gcc 2.95 would do just fine in almost all situations. Besides, when I compiled gcc 3.2, I saw a lot of warnibngs about sign and unsign and deprecated components.

Change from gcc 2.95 to 3.2 isn't big, but I like the newer version more.
Just my opinion.

will it be easier just update gcc? for example with rm -rf?

I personally think the change from gcc 2.95 to 3.2 is a very good thing to have. And I would do it now rather than later.

Cool

Can you explain?

Explain what? The differences in the two? I like the ability to use the AMD opimizations in 3.2 that weren't available before.

To see all the differences I think there would probably be a changelog if that's what you mean.

Here's the homepage:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/

Cool

>Explain what?

Well. For the sake of discussion and the benefits of those who read this thread. Not for my own sake.

You can, but a distro update from time to time (especially for someone who likes "messing") is a good idea. It's a time to remove not needed software.

check out this hint.... maybe you want to keep both?

http://hints.linuxfromscratch.org/hi...e_versions.txt

Oh right, I thought maybe you meant more on gcc or something, no problem

Cool

I am thinking that if we just want to upgrade gcc then just discarded all the previous gcc files and run install gcc . It even faster that way and some people can't afford to throw away all the system they have built( may be a server or something).

how are you going to compile gcc if you have removed the previous version? You would have to either still have the /usr/static directory around or use the one from your base system i guess. What i did right after i installed 3.3 and wanted to be "up to date" was just to compile the libraries and gcc on top of the older one. I don't think this is the correct way to do it at all, but it seemed to work. ex:

[~][10:03:40]> gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.1/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.1/configure --prefix=/usr --enable-shared --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-threads=posix --with-slibdir=/lib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.1

Well. That's a good point. But I used the gcc compiler of the base distro in the same computer.