unstable branch for LFS

Christophe Devine devine at iie.cnam.fr
Tue Oct 15 10:49:30 PDT 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.
> The current CVS version cannot fulfill this function as it should improve
> upon LFS 4.0 (leading to a better 4.1) instead of getting lots of unstable
> changes using packages whose introduction to stable LFS lies in an
> uncertain future.

It may be simpler that someone (Greg ?) writes a gcc-3_3_and_glibc-2_3_1
hint, just like what you did a year ago with keep_chap5_and_chap6_separate.

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