Update to current packages or PLFS first?

James Robertson jameswrobertson at earthlink.net
Wed Apr 30 06:53:57 PDT 2003

Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> As far as I can see we have two options to get development started again:
> 1) Begin with updating to all the latest packages, or
> 2) Integrating the pure-lfs.txt hint, or
> pure-lfs is based on newer packages for some of the instructions, so if we 
> went the pure-lfs route, it would mean we update only partly to the latest 
> packages (at first) followed by the rest later.
> 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).
> <...snip...> 
> So that's my preference. Packages first, pure-lfs immediately afterwards. If 
> anybody disagrees, speak up (or forever hold your peace).

I would like to see us move to the PLFS first.  Plenty of opportunity to 
have testing going on with older packages first and them move to the 
latest and greatest over time.  Using some of the other posts before me, 
the reasons seem pretty sound, IMHO.

Not trying to throw a wrench in the whole system, but where do the XML 
changes come in?  Do we want to try and concentrate on getting the 
rendering correct so when peices are written, they can have proper 
formatting at the same time?

James Robertson | jameswrobertson at earthlink.net
Reg. Linux User: #160424  http://counter.li.org
Reg. LFS User:   #6981    http://www.linuxfromscatch.org

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