CVS contains LFS-4.0

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at
Sat Sep 14 10:40:44 PDT 2002


On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 12:28:38PM +0200, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> Waiting a month or even 2 can only benefit these people. LFS 3.3 works
> fine. There won't be any trouble with it. There's going to be a lot more
> trouble with LFS 4.0, especially if it is rushed now. If you absolutely
> want to release LFS 4.0 now, call it "LFS 4.0beta" and keep LFS 3.3 on the
> site next to it. Do not replace the version yet.
> This way, LFS 4.0 will get more exposure but people will be prepared to
> encounter some trouble and those who don't visit and
> don't read the mailing lists will keep using 3.3 which ATM is the system
> that causes the least trouble.

Am I the only one that feels that Gerard is actually _not_ rushing 4.0?

Personally, I think it's long overdue for a release.  It's been over 6
months since 3.3 was released.  It's not like we haven't had time-nor
have we not been testing CVS here.  The instructions have been quite
sound for over 3 months.  Don't start bitching about it now. =P

Honestly, id just be glad that we all had one more day to find bugs,
typos and such stuff before 4.0 is out.  Gerard was prepared to release
last night, and he would have, had I not suggested he just wait untill
today.  (He was planning on releasing, but only letting lfs-dev know and
not do the standard pr/release announcement stuff untill today)

Look... I was one of the people that did _not_ want to see gcc3 get into
the book as quickly as it did.  I though it needed more testing, it was
still immature, etc, etc.  So I comprised and asked that they at least
wait for a new version. (which was suppose to resolve most major issues)

My request was granted and gcc3 was added with the new version.  I bit
my tongue and stopped spreading FUD at that point and started using CVS.
I have *not* run into any problems I was not able to fix.  And I am not
speaking as a "guru" or someone that has used LFS for a number of years.
Most of the problems I had run into, I would have had I used 3.3.


The longer we wait, the harder it's going to be to make a new release.

We have allready started to fall behind on package updates (which are
mostly unimportant small updates) because of the freeze that took effect
a while back.  If we continue in this state, it's just going to harm us.

Over %40 of people are now building CVS systems.  That isn't a small
number here.  Think about it.  We usually have 1k/month doing 3.3, so..

We can *always* release 4.1 if people start running into major problems.
It's not a long process.  Id really like us to return to releasing more
often.  What we have done with 4.0 has made things slightly stale, imho.

Perhaps I just don't like the idea of not hitting a deadline, when we
damn well knew in advance where we wanted to be.  We have had plenty of
time to resolve all major issues.

And.. perhaps i'm nuts or something, but I do believe we have hit our
goal.  Not release is *ever* perfect, not matter how much testing you
put into it, or how long you wait for things to "stabalize".

Anyways.. I have an appointment with some friends in 15m, so I wont be
back untill midnight tonight.  I hope things work out, either way.

Going to miss another LFS release.. yay =D

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee  ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list