Dagmar d'Surreal no.spam at
Sat Jan 11 15:07:25 PST 2003

On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 13:21, Matthew Reppert wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there a reason we don't use the H. J. Lu binutils releases in the book?
> I know that (at least) Debian and SuSE use them (but am told that really
> all
> major distributions do),

There's really not much more I can say about this other than it's
wrong.  Usually these wound up getting used in the past because they had
patches to fix issues the distribution developers were aware of, but not
because they were automatically better or something.  They are still
beta releases, and beta releases are definitely fast-moving targets.

>  and IIRC Alan Cox mentioned on lkml that they have
> some subtle fixes for Linux on various archs. The Changelogs mention mips
> and alpha in this respect. They also seem to be preferred according to the
> kernel documentation (Documentation/Changes mentions that you need
> or greater).
> The current version is ...
> (where XX is your country code)

Anything with a "90" in it can not automatically be assumed to be newer
than what you might expect.  Always, always, check the timestamps in the
ChangeLog against the latest non-beta release to figure out which is
newer, but usually the beta releases don't take an incredibly long time
to go back into being put on

Please search the archives and you'll see where I've explained this in
detail recently, but suffice it to say that is actually
_older_ than the version found on

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