unstable branch for LFS

Anderson Lizardo Gomes lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Oct 15 11:50:55 PDT 2002


"zigman2k" <zigman at gmx.net> wrote:
> [...]
> thats what i think too... cvs is sometimes unstable.. everyone who tryes
> cvs know that it might not even compile.

CVS isn't so unstable as you say... It's even more stable that 3.0 or 4.0 
releases (it was the reason to me jump from 3.0 to CVS). I use only CVS 
versions. My version of LFS is now 20021003.

> 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 ..

I don't think that it's a good idea, because LFS will be "dependent" of the 
packages developers, so if they decide that will release the next stable 
version within two years, will we wait? LFS can't stop ;-)

As someone said (sorry, I lost the original mail), my suggestion is to write 
hints to this "unstable" packages, so who is interested will follow the 
instructions there. Then, when it becomes more "usable", it will be 
incorporated by LFS CVS to more testing. In case of success, will be in next 
release.

> 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

The main objective of LFS is to produce a stable and reliable system. So, I 
think that, to reach this objective, it's better use "older" but stable 
packages. The CVS is just, as its name, a "versioning system", not a synonym 
to "unstable, buggy and unreliable system". LFS CVS don't need to be 
unstable.

--
Anderson Lizardo.
-- 
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