Update to current packages or PLFS first?

Archaic archaic at indy.rr.com
Tue Apr 29 22:29:05 PDT 2003


On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 10:25:35PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> 
> But if we go the update packages route first, we get into some issues, like 
> glibc-2.3.2. It'll have a temporary cludge until pure-lfs is applied after 
> which the cludge would be removed (touching a missing header file the issue 
> was if I recall correctly).

Which by itself should be enough to stop that route, IMHO.

> On a totally different note, Greg let me know he'll be away for a week or so 
> and I thought it would be only fair if he were here when the change-over 
> happened. Maybe he doesn't care for that, but it only seems right since he is  
> a large part of the pure-lfs effort (yes, you are too Ryan ;)

But then, out of respect....

> So that's my preference. Packages first, pure-lfs immediately afterwards. If 
> anybody disagrees, speak up (or forever hold your peace).

For the intermediary, might I suggest the switch to coreutils (5.0 is
released as stable) and grub? Grub-0.93 is a major change from 0.92 and
will closely resemble 1.0. Also, alot of the pLFS stuff is alpha. Are we
intending to go that route? If not, there really isn't all that much to
upgrade. Some patchlevel updates, but only a couple of minor revision
updates (assuming that we stay away from toolchain updates until the
switch). Here's another point: HJL or FSF binutils?

-- 
Archaic

-- 
A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he
cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable
creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself.

- John Stuart Mill, writing on the U.S. Civil War in 1862

-- 
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