Update to current packages or PLFS first?

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Tue Apr 29 23:28:41 PDT 2003


Thien Vu wrote:
> When the switchover to PLFS does occur, won't there be testing in any
case?

Its been pretty well tested over the last 3 months... on a fair few
different platforms (sparc, alpha, powerpc, x86 ) of course some have been
tested more heavily than others ;-) ...

> Although LFS has always tried to keep with the most current package it
was
> never a requirement (older LILO --> nasm not required decision), so this
> shouldn't change with PLFS either.

With the PLFS builds you'll find most stuff just builds, even the
development stuff.

At present
 - no changes reqd for gcc-3.3 CVS (apart from not using the mmap patch)
 - no real changes for cvs glibc (except no need to unpack linuxthreads)
   unless you use NPTL ( see Zack's hint )
 - binutils is sorted for both FSF and HJ
 - there is only a minor change to kernel header installation for 2.5.x

Have a play with it, you'll see most everything just hangs together ;-)

Regards
Ryan


-- 
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