Drool... WAS --> Re: Autoconf Version 2.14.1

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jan 5 15:43:25 PST 2001


> Didn't your dad ever say, don't fix something that isn't broken..

Why then go start using a 2.4 kernel? I was running a 2.0.36 kernel for a 
while and it wasn't broken at all. It worked perfectly for me. I could still 
use it if I had to. We don't just upgrade because things are broken, we also 
like to stay current.

> Don't you guys believe in software maturing after a while? (or in this
> case, everything else maturing to be more campatible with each other ;)

So that same means when gcc-3 is released don't use it right away. Wait for 
gcc-3.2.0 or gcc-3.9x?

And we won't be using a 2.4 kernel either, since the stable 2.4 branch should 
mature a bit. Wait until 2.4.10 or something? I mean, even now with 
linux-2.2.18 things are still broken for me (that's why i use a 2.4 kenrel, 
mainly for agpgart stuff) and it doesnt' seem to mature (then again I can 
understand people don't want to mature 2.2 when 2.4 was sooooo close).

But that's not the point. my point is: how long do we wait for something to 
mature? 

I can understand the reasons to wait and the reasons why not to wait. I guess 
CVS is the perfect trade of. If you don't want to wait, get CVS snapshots. 
You can be assured that I don't put stuff into CVS that doesn't work, unless 
i fix a typo or two of course. Example: I wouldn't put glibc-2.2 in it 
without having build an entire system by the book first. Anyways, use CVS if 
you don't want to wait, if you do want to wait, don't use CVS and keep using 
2.4.3 until LFS-3.0 is oficially released.

Jesse suggested having a stable and development tree. I won't do that, sorry. 
I personally don't want to invest the time in maintaining both trees (not to 
mention I don't have that time).

Btw. I think it's still funny to call a book stable and not-stable.. what's 
it gonna do, papers burn up on you all of the sudden due to a bug in the 
chemical formulae that produced the papers? ;o)

> Now again that's a bit more work, but glibc 2.2 isn't a small update and
> should be though out, imho
>
> Dunno, it's Gerard's choice, just getting my CND0.02$ in.

It's still my opinion that things aren't so unstable as people are afraid 
they are. But why don't you just build an LFS system with glibc-2.2 No 
patches other than the gcc and fileutils patch are necesarry. Everything 
compiles and runs perfectly right up to XFree 4.0.2, KDE-2.0.1/KDE-2.1-Beta1, 
all kinds of OpenGL/Mesa/DRI stuff. In a few minutes I'm going to put Q3A on 
and see how that one runs (probably crappy due to a slow vga card with only 
8mb memory or something).

Cya, and have a good weekend

-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list