patches for flex-2.5.4a

Seth W.Klein sk at
Fri Jan 3 11:18:13 PST 2003

Greg Schafer <gschafer at> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 09:46:30PM -0600, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > 
> > Actually, I don't think we should go looking for patches from Redhat, 
> > etal. I went on a fishing expidition coz I could not get ttmkfdir to 
> > compile and found the above patches. Only one of the patches was useful 
> > to fix ttmkfdir problem, but the patch names sounded important enough 
> > (glibc22, gcc3...).
> Yeah I know what you mean. I often go on those fishing expeditions too :)
> But I've always taken the view that we only patch where stuff is obviously
> broken. That doesn't seem to the case here. But having said that, flex is
> one of those packages that is (seemingly) not maintained so it may well
> benefit from a bit of modernization.

I think including such modernization patches is a negative point of
distributions because it takes the pressure off the maintainers to
update their package. And if there are no maintainers, it removes the
pressure on the comunity that gets someone to take up maintainership.

I think one of the ways LFS can play its part is by encouraging
maintainers to pick up the patches that the distributions using.

Seth W. Klein (who does prefix everything with "IMO" to differentiate
himself from those who think that their opinions are fact.)
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