Update to current packages or PLFS first?

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Wed Apr 30 00:00:28 PDT 2003


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

It's been pretty well tested over the last 3 months already on a fair few
platforms (x86, sparc, powerpc, alpha ... some more 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.

Package versions becomes far less of an issue doing a PLFS build.
There are no real changes to the build method even using current
development
packages

 - no changes required for CVS gcc-3.3 (minus the configure mmap patch)
 - no real changes required for CVS Glibc (except no need to unpack
   linuxthreads) unless you use NPTL (see Zacks hint )
 - only minor changes to the kernel header install for 2.5.x

The way I see it is we have already sorted the lot out for all packages
from LFS4.1 through to, well, most all current packages (including reqd
patches, mods etc) so all is really required is settling on what package
versions we want to put into the book... and of course writing it up ;-)

After that hump book updates should be a hell of a lot easier ( ie update
package ver, check if any patches are required or can be dropped )

FWIW anyway ;-)
[R]


-- 
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