unstable branch for LFS

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Wed Oct 16 13:25:53 PDT 2002

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Archaic wrote:

> If I'm getting Matthias correctly, take for instance ext2fsprogs:
> LFS-4.0 is using 1.27
> CVS would incorporate 1.29 (the current stable release IIRC)
> UNSTABLE would use a version that wasn't stable, like 2.0 or something.

 Interesting example. 1.29 (and 1.28) have a bug with indexed ext3
directories, if I recall correctly. (It might only be possibly to do
this on a 2.5 kernel, I'm not sure.) There was a dated snapshot from Ted
T'so a couple of weeks ago, which he hoped would fix the bug(s). If I
wanted to try something nearer the bleeding edge I'd go for the dated
snapshot, but for stable I'll stick to 1.27 at the moment.

 This isn't to slag off ext2fsprogs, over a long enough period most
packages get bugs in stable releases. Sometimes you can revert to an
earlier release, sometimes you need a patched snapshot. My gut feeling
is that whenever you come across a problem with a package somebody needs
to take an informed view. I don't think you can always go with "this
release is stable, so it goes in the old CVS, this one isn't, so it
stays in bleeding edge.

 Of course, there are arguments for having a version with "on
probation" new releases, whether they are called stable or not, and
migrating them into the old CVS when no problems show up, but that really
needs a lot more testing than we can provide as a group. 

 Out of the darkness a voice spake unto me, saying "smile, things could be
worse". So I smiled, and lo, things became worse.

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