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

Jesse Tie Ten Quee highos at highos.com
Mon Jan 8 08:52:38 PST 2001


Yo,

On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 06:43:25PM -0500, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> 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.

Right, your point? I'm not saying that LFS should wait forever, just a
little, little while.. is it really going to kill anyone to wait an
extra month/LFS release?

I didn't know LFS was so behind in the bleeding edge race... when you
think bout it, if 2.4.4 (or whatever the next version ends-up) features
glibc 2.2 and kernel 2.4 (which is fine by me on this issue), then LFS
_will_be_leading_ that race (as a base system) with the most bleeding
edge software.. god forbid! quasar.highos.com is hopelessly out of date
then! *sniff*

> 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).

nevermind... i hate major releases, there always great, but a freaking
mess when it comes to stuff like this ;)

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

You seem to allready have that answer...

> 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.

Why push back the 2.4.4 release then? there are a bunch of things that
have been added that are good enough for it to be released (then again,
i can't see your TODO list, but the things that have been added, alot of
users have been waiting for)

> 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).

I knew you were going to say this, but what's the point of using CVS if
other's can't help out, Eh?

> 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)

Sure, why not, i've heard/tried far more weird things ;)

> 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).

I'm planning on building a LFS system with 2.2 when i get back, but
that's a little hard from here, ain't it :P :)

btw, how did Q3A work out? =)

Anyways... i'm done, 'nuff of me, hope you (and everyone else) doesn't
take this thread the wrong way, what i post is always just my opinion
(and alot of the time, it ain't so humble ;), at least with LFS, a user can
votch there concerns and get listened, that's a great feeling...!

/me whom stands behind Gerard and LFS, no matter what choice is taken.

-
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