Pure LFS - good to go

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Thu Feb 20 20:10:03 PST 2003

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 07:38:55PM +0100, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> I agree with Tush that we should have an lfs-patches mailinglist where 
> patches from vendors can be evaluated and added.

Yes, but we need manpower to analyse, test, integrate and so forth. How many
programmers capable of doing this do we have on the list? Not many methinks.

> 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.

Don't be scared :-) No, thats not what he meant. For starters, only gcc and
binutils matter when compiling kernels. What you are talking about above is
a straight out bug in glibc. Now that the bug has been identified, we can
look at applying a patch in LFS if needed. The first thing that occurs to me
is how many folk are going to be affected by it? If not many, then do we
really need to worry? But if important then yes lets fix it. I'll say it
again, we are not a distro and are are not generally capable of catering
to the masses.

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