Pure LFS - good to go

Matt Reppert arashi at yomerashi.yi.org
Thu Feb 20 09:47:20 PST 2003

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:33:17 -0000
"Matthew Burgess" <ca9mbu at eos.sunderland.ac.uk> wrote:

> Just a thought that occured to me while reading the various "Pure LFS"
> threads.  Now that everyone seems convinced we're building a more
> reliable toolchain using this method do you think that any of the LKML
> or toolchain guys would be interested in taking a look at the proposed
> method and provide feedback.

Possibly. I haven't had time to look at purelfs yet ... how close is it to
some of the established distro build sequences? And more importantly, what
sort of fixes against *known release bugs* are we incorporating? Not all
toolchain errors are due to compiling stuff wrong, after all.

If we're going to do this, I'd prefer to wait a while, but probably the best
person to ask would be someone who does release management (IMO).

> Or are they too adamant to remain on their high-horse and continue to
> discredit LFS?

That's not really being fair. ^_^; If something is buggy, it's buggy. Currently,
realtime signals are unusable in LFS' glibc 2.3.1 due to a glibc bug that's
already patched in Debian unstable. (At least, they are on my ia32 system.
I'm going to go out and get another drive to stick in my test box so I can play
around with experimental stuff more ... )

Rather than be bitter towards people who are pointing out our mistakes, it
would be better to learn from them and improve our system. No? (Yes, I know
that Alan never said anything here, but I think it was rather nice of Andries
to make the mtab suggestion a couple of months back.)

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