Slip 89

Simon Perreault nomis80 at
Fri May 4 19:30:32 PDT 2001

(Let's move that to lfs-discuss.)

On Friday 04 May 2001 14:15, you wrote:
> 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.

Ok, there is a problem with gcc 2.95.3 when using glibc 2.2.3. That would 
make for an unstable system. But you say there is a patch. That would fix the 
problem in a way not acceptable for a release, but very acceptable for a cvs 
commit. I think we should stop using CVS as a stable repository. The way we 
are using CVS right now is that the most stable version of the book is in 
CVS. You have a problem with 2.4.4? Go use the CVS version! There's a problem 
in pre2? Go use the CVS! I mean, it shouldn't be so. CVS should be a place 
where we develop new features. The cvs version of the book should be unstable 
and in testing/development phase. We have a lot of LFS'ers here that would 
gladly help us test a cvs version if only we modified it so that it uses the 
latest packages. Let's consider cvs as a scrapbook. Let's consider cvs as a 
construction site. Let's use cvs like it was designed to be used: as a 
development tool, not a source repository.

Let's move to glibc-2.2.3, gcc-2.95.3, and use the gcc patch. RSN.

Simon Perreault -- Public key:

More information about the lfs-book mailing list