packages that are out of date
ccheney at cheney.cx
Fri Oct 4 15:47:46 PDT 2002
I apologize for not reading the FAQ first.
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:32:54PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Aside from what Matthew told you (Matthew didn't CC you, I just sent you a
> copy of his email), we can't keep doing package updates to the book. There
> comes a point close a new release that we need to freeze package updates and
> do some thorough testing of the then current packages. If we keep updating as
> packages are released, you'll never know if there's a problem with something
> because we haven't had the time to test it.
Yes, I didn't mean it needed to be updated for 4.0. Debian has a
similiar problem with keeping its stable version up to date.
> As soon as LFS-4.0 is released (sometime this weekend if all goes according to
> plan) CVS will be updated with all the latest packages and we'll start
> testing those. As long as the versions you mentioned are on the (as we know
> it) official project's website. There are a few updates we won't be doing
> quite yet (such as Glibc because it won't work with GCC-3.2 and tar because
> it's not on ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/tar/ yet).
It seems that gnu takes a very long time to update certain packages on
their official site, for example tar, the version on ftp.gnu.org is from
Sept 05, 1999, and the version on alpha.gnu.org is from Sept 26, 2001.
I noticed this email when looking for why tar in LFS was so old:
It appeared that tar was going to be updated, but it looks like that didn't
gzip is another package that ftp.gnu.org hasn't updated its version in
several years, but that other distributions have been using
alpha.gnu.org's version instead.
For binutils I think most distributions use the versions available at
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils instead of the version at
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev