an FAQ update

[Bruno Haible]

Now that gcc 2.95.2.1 is released, the FAQ should recommend it instead
of gcc 2.95.2 + unofficial patch.

Bruno


*** FAQ.in	Tue Jan  2 16:16:31 2001
--- FAQ.in.new	Thu Jan 11 22:35:45 2001
***************
*** 626,632 ****
  	glibc 2.x?
  
  {AJ} There's only correct support for glibc 2.0.x in gcc 2.7.2.3 or later.
! But you should get at least gcc 2.95.2 (or later versions) instead.
  
  ??	The `gencat' utility cannot process the catalog sources which
  	were used on my Linux libc5 based system.  Why?
--- 626,632 ----
  	glibc 2.x?
  
  {AJ} There's only correct support for glibc 2.0.x in gcc 2.7.2.3 or later.
! But you should get at least gcc 2.95.2.1 (or later versions) instead.
  
  ??	The `gencat' utility cannot process the catalog sources which
  	were used on my Linux libc5 based system.  Why?
***************
*** 1020,1029 ****
  
  ??	When recompiling GCC, I get compilation errors in libio.
  
! {BH} You are trying to recompile gcc 2.95.2?  After upgrading to glibc 2.2,
! you need to apply a patch to the gcc sources, because the fpos_t type and
! a few libio internals have changed in glibc 2.2. T he patch is at
! http://clisp.cons.org/~haible/gcc-glibc-2.2-compat.diff
  
  
  ? Source and binary incompatibilities, and what to do about them
--- 1020,1028 ----
  
  ??	When recompiling GCC, I get compilation errors in libio.
  
! {BH} You are trying to recompile gcc 2.95.2?  Use gcc 2.95.2.1 instead.
! This version is needed because the fpos_t type and a few libio internals
! have changed in glibc 2.2, and gcc 2.95.2.1 contains a corresponding patch.
  
  
  ? Source and binary incompatibilities, and what to do about them