Slip 89

Marc Heerdink marc_heerdink at
Fri May 4 11:15:43 PDT 2001

Simon Perreault sent these bits on Thu, 3 May 2001 20:09:57 -0400:
> On Thursday 03 May 2001 19:30, you wrote:
> > Anyway, I'll be building an LFS now with all the new packages under 44, up
> > to 89 (the latest one).
> Nevermind, I just found out that a lot of them were already completed. I 
> closed a bunch of them. (Bad, bad Marc.) There are not enough to warrant a 
> complete build. I'll do other slips then. Hum...

Sorry.. I've been online for only 20 secs the past week (to do the cvs cis) I
just forgot about keystone. But hey, you guys also want me to pass my finals

> I feel that we should somehow move to glibc-2.2.latest. I suggest that we 
> make the modifications in CVS, and let the people test it out. Five or so 
> developers can't declare a glibc installation method stable all by themselves.

Too bad the latest "stable" glibc (2.2.3) doesn't work with the latest stable
gcc (2.95.3). There is a patch however, and we just can't make ppl use the gcc
cvs sources. I don't know if we do the right thing if we move to a not really
stable and reliable glibc version that isn't even compatible with the latest
stable gcc.

There is no programming language, no matter how structured,
that will prevent programmers from writing bad programs.
- L. Flon

Marc Heerdink
marc_heerdink at

More information about the lfs-book mailing list