Pure LFS - good to go

Matthew Burgess ca9mbu at eos.sunderland.ac.uk
Thu Feb 20 12:45:06 PST 2003


"Matt Reppert" <arashi at yomerashi.yi.org> wrote in message
news:20030220134930.7bd1a59d.arashi at yomerashi.yi.org...
> > Assumptions & implications...easily avoidable if Alan would have
come
> > straight out and said something like "Until LFS fixes their
toolchain
> > (it's broken because of X)..." then we'd all be the wiser.
>
> True. I'm not sure if we determined if he was talking about LFS in
specific
> or just non-"traditional distro" people in general. But still, none of
us
> asked him about it after it came out (at least IIRC). I guess bearded,
> Welsh-speaking[1] Britons with big hats are scary :3
>
> It did strike me, though, when I read the first message on LKML that
one of
> the most important issues here was that LFS doesn't patch known bugs
that
> other distros do.

This begs another question...when is it that the upstream developers
finally put patches like this in.  Surely it would be better to fix the
problem at its source, rather than have to provide a cure for a symptom
caused by the original package?  This is especially so if most if not
all the "regular" distros are having to include the same patch.  I know
we don't live in a perfect world, but somewhere closer than this has got
to be achievable, no?


-- 
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