r1373 - / trunk/BOOK trunk/BOOK/cross-tools trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/64 trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/common trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/mips trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/mips64 trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/mips64-64 trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/multilib trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/ppc trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/sparc64 trunk/BOOK/cross-tools/sparc64-64 trunk/BOOK/final-system/mips trunk/BOOK/final-system/mips64 trunk/BOOK/final-system/sparc64-64 trunk/BOOK/final-system/x86_64-64

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Thu Apr 13 16:31:40 PDT 2006

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
>> We have a rule in CLFS, if the file is just includes for another file,
> That's wonderful, but where and when are these rules decided? And if 
> I'm supposed to be a dev (I've been since before anyone else save you 
> and Ryan) why don't I know about it?
That's always been the case, limit the # of files to eliminate the 
errors, and the chance of improper data.
> OK. So *please* at least *tell* the list about it. Don't just make the 
> change and keep on trucking without explaining anything. How can I (or 
> others who are interested) be expected to keep up-to-speed otherwise?
That's where I expect you to ask questions like,  why was the sed put 
in, was it reported upstream, what is the effect if the sed is not used.

I made the change that I know works, with the testing I have done. Now 
Granted, Ken, Ryan, and the other devs, may of found a better way to 
solve it, would I object to them putting it in. No, would I ask 
questions, yes, if I didn't understand the change.

These particular changes we are making right now a major impacting ones, 
because it affects GLIBC and GCC, and a lot of us have been doing 
testing. If you want details about our testing, all you have to do is 
ask, and I can provide you with all the data you need. But I'm not going 
to waste time just submitting fodder to the list.

More information about the cross-lfs mailing list