Pure LFS - good to go
jeroencoumans at gmx.net
Thu Feb 20 10:38:55 PST 2003
Matt Reppert wrote:
> 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 ... )
Would that be the bug that attached patch fixes? (taken from the debian
diff) What other patches should we apply from them (I'm not expert
enough to find out myself :( )
> 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.)
I agree with Tush that we should have an lfs-patches mailinglist where
patches from vendors can be evaluated and added. It scares me that
important things like the above aren't fixed. I assume it's something
that Alan also implied in his criticism against LFS's toolchain.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the lfs-dev