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

Jesse Tie Ten Quee highos at highos.com
Fri Jan 5 15:46:19 PST 2001


On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 06:07:01PM -0500, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> I guess a couple of us, me included, do not fully agree that one should
> wait for gcc to update before we update our glibc. LIkewise i don't wait
> till a certain modutils is released before I go and run a newer kernel
> (be it 2.2 or 2.4). Now you can think two things:
> 1) GNU people are very very very stupid to release a Glibc version for
> which no suitable compiler is avaiable yet.
> 2) GNU people release a Glibc version the current GNU compiler can deal
> with.
> To me number 2 makes more sense than the first option. Likewise I don't
> wait to run a different gcc version if no newer Glibc has been released.
> In a way gcc and glibc go hand in hand, but I guess most of us don't
> combine gcc and glibc that strongly. 

I have since i've been LFS'ing, i consider all the packages combined as
a base and should all be though of as "combined" work (IMHO that is)

I really do like the way LFS is done right now, just the right amount of
packages, etc, but i'm not trying to get in the way of development here,
just trying to make sure everyone's head is screwed on right ;)

I hate patch'ing software, for whatever reason (well added functionally
is one thing, but to get something compiled when the program is coded
for that platform is plain wrong)

You can't blame all the GNU guys, as GCC 3.0 was suppose to be out a
long time ago..

> But hey, I am I and you are you. I'm glad you don't think the way I do,
> the world would be very boring if you were to do so. And since I do have
> to keep as many people happy as I can, I will not include glibc in the
> new book, not until gcc 2.95.3 or later has been released. This simply
> means I will wait with the next book release until gcc updates so
> everybody here is happy ;) This gives me more time to do more work on
> the book and get some long-awaiting things done. The more work I can do
> the more we can justify the LFS major number increase. As soon as gcc
> updates, LFS will go 3.0 (there will probably be no 2.4.4 or 2.5.0. I
> rather wait and save myself a lot of work).


> What if people don't want to wait and just want to have a book that
> deals with glibc 2.2 and whatever the current gcc is? Well good news for
> those guys. If all goes according to plan I will put the LFS book in CVS
> tomorrow. I am not sure if I can get to it tomorrow as I have a couple
> of ALFS things planned that have a higher priority. It all depends on
> how fast I can work tomorrow.

Well, there were like three LFS'ers that were going to make a Hint, no
idea if anything happened with that.

> When LFS is in CVS, a cron job will run daily that creates various
> versions of the current snapshot. Every night you'll be able to grab
> SGML, HTML, TXT, PS and PDF versions of the current book in CVS. CVS is
> step one, then I have to install a few programs on linuxfromscratch.org
> that can convert SGML into HTML, PS and PDF. I hope to have that script
> running by Tuesday. But this all depends on my time.
> Anyways the global plan is to have LFS BOOK in CVS and the script(s)
> running by the end of next week.

Whoo.. <ignore this> Finally! </ignore this>

> On a sidenote:
> I want to convert LFS book into XML DocBook soon. I have not looked at
> what is needed to make the conversion, but if somebody here knows how to
> do so, feel free to give me a few pointers how to do so ;)

Mmmm... *drools*

Jesse Tie Ten Quee - highos at highos dot com

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