Pure LFS and gawk

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Wed Apr 16 16:51:48 PDT 2003

S. Anthony Sequeira wrote:
> Hi,
> Is PLFS not using gawk 3.1.2?  A search throws up 3 references to 3.1.2,
> non of them conclusive (to me at least (Hi Matthew)).

With the hint/scripts we are not advocating the use of any particular
version number for anything ( well, except for latest gcc, binutils (FSF or
HJL ) and glibc-3.2.1/3.2.2 ).

The version numbers in the scripts are only what I am playing with at the
time I post the scripts in ( and I chop and change between old and new
versions a lot to test the build method )

/me thinks I should make it so we source the package version information
from a seperate file and avoid this confusion (sorry folks, maybe I haven't
made myself totally clear as to what I'm doing on this end).

Maybe supply a couple, one with LFS CVS packages or whatever the list deems
to be the best versions (should be an interesting debate ;-) ), one with
the latest bleeding edge packages ( or the latest I can find on my
weekly/fortnightly package updates )

> I'll carry on with 3.1.1, until I get told contrary.
Test away with whatever you can find, just let the list know how you go ;-)

> Cheers.  Hope I'm posting in the right group.
For this yes, for support to the support list (finally got around to
setting myself up to lurk there)

Best Regards

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