This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [doc] Improve support library requirements documentation (PR bootstrap/48135)
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:53:50 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [doc] Improve support library requirements documentation (PR bootstrap/48135)
- References: <yddaagohgec.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Rainer Orth wrote:
> While investigating PR bootstrap/48135, it came up that the submitter
> had run into trouble bootstrapping with mpc 0.9.0. Unfortunately,
> install.texi when describing support library requirements always
> lists `(or later)' with the individual libraries.
I wouldn't say "unfortunately", since those later versions _are_
supposed to work. Also, think of users of a distribution that has
these libraries in specific, possibly newer version, who ideally
should be able to use those.
> +Several support libraries are necessary to build GCC, some are required,
> +others optional.
Something's odd here. :-) Some of the necessary libaries are required,
while other necessary libaries are optional? How about something like
Several support libraries are necessary to build GCC, plus there
are a couple of optional ones.
or so?
While any sufficiently new version of required tools
> +usually work, library requirements are generally stricter. Newer
> +versions may work in some cases, but it's safer to use the exact
> +versions documented. We appreciate bug reports about problems with
> +newer versions, though.
This is an important clarification, though at the same time I'm a bit
concerned about our installation documentation getting ever bigger (and
less likely to be read in consequence). Perhaps omit the part about
bug reports?
Gerald