unstable branch for LFS

zigman2k zigman at gmx.net
Tue Oct 15 06:28:25 PDT 2002


>On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
>> I think with all the changes going on right now with gcc-3.3 and
>> glibc-2.3.1 and other unstable packages that will become part of a future
>> LFS version (e.g. coreutils) we need an unstable branch of the LFS book.
>
>I agree. But, AFAIK, that is what the current CVS is for. This based on
>observation of the numerous revision/test/revise... 

thats what i think too... cvs is sometimes unstable.. everyone who tryes cvs 
know that it might not even compile.
i think new (even unstable) packages should go into cvs and when it turns out to
be stable a new version of lfs should be released ..

about gcc-3.3 and glibc-2.3.1 ... if it works or not.. there is no way that lfs should
stay with gcc-3.2 and/or glibc-2.2.5 ....we (well not me *g*) should make them work
.. so they need to be in cvs...
michael


-- 
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 mailing list