More gcc/glibc weirdness

Richard A Downing richard.downing at
Thu Feb 20 08:45:30 PST 2003

Gerard Beekmans wrote:

> On February 20, 2003 09:35 am, James Iwanek wrote:
>> why not 4.1, 4.2 then 5.0? ;-)
> If the upcoming is 4.1, the pure-lfs changes 4.2 then what will be 5.0? If
> the pure-lfs changes cannot be justified to increase the major number,
> we'll probably never, ever increase the major number again ;)

Why worry?  You are just doing marketing here.  The issue is just simply:
'Is the change such a significant discontinuity from the previous version
that a reader/user has to KNOW to make a major jump in understanding, or
major change in operating method?' (I could probably phrase that better,
but you get it...

Who cares if we reach Version 9 or 99 this year?  It just means that the
linux world is revolving faster, and LFS is keeping at (or pushing forward)
the leading edge.  To my mind the Pure LFS stuff is even more significant
the Matthias's Chapter5/6 split, because the toolchain really did need

Keep the minor releases for minor package changes.


Richard A Downing FBCS
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list