unstable branch for LFS

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Tue Oct 15 06:40:12 PDT 2002

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:15:30PM +0200, 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.

An interesting and good idea.. but I don't believe it is workable. In my
estimation, there is simply not enuff manpower and/or knowledge to sustain
the effort of maintaining what amounts to 2 separate books.

As it is, there are some hard core LFS'ers who are maintaining their own
"unstable" branch of LFS just by living on the absolute bleeding edge (and
beyond). I (sometimes) fall into this category and as has been well
documented, have been happy to contribute back into LFS my findings and
solutions. LFS has given me lots, so I have no trouble giving back, and I
would hope others have similar attitudes. The tweaks page started for the
very reason you mention of trying to keep track of cutting edge LFS
developments that might otherwise get lost in the maze of lfs-dev.


PS - I have no idea why you're even bothering with gcc-3.3. It is literally
months away. The gcc dev-plan page estimates the release date of Dec 15 but
I will bet you 5 Euros that it is not released by Feb 15 2003. The next
obvious upgrade for LFS will be gcc-3.2.x/glibc2.3.x which is what we should
be testing.
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