More gcc/glibc weirdness

Seth W.Klein sk at
Fri Feb 21 11:04:50 PST 2003

Gerard Beekmans <gerard at> wrote:
> On February 10, 2003 06:53 pm, James Iwanek wrote:
> > 
> > i thought that the next release was going to be 5.0 because of the glibc
> > changes?
> And then the next release will be 6.0 with all those pure-lfs changes in it. 
> Seems a bit too much to jump major version numbers three times in a row. And 
> the current changes compared to the upcoming ones are pretty minor.

I _personally_ don't see why. We're all used to small version numbers
because so many projects are fairly young, but look at the venerable
sox which is at 12.17.3. There's nothing wrong with high version
numbers that i can see. And, with the incompatible changes in GCC,
it's not like this isn't a major upgrade. Sure the version numbers
jump rapidly; development is "jumping" rapidly right now; it's fine
if the numbers reflect that.

Seth W. Klein
sk at               
Maintainer, LFS FAQ   
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