Seth W.Klein sk at
Mon Jan 13 15:21:58 PST 2003

Dagmar d'Surreal <no.spam at> wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:38, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 05:07:25PM -0600, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> > > 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?
> > > > [....]
> > HJ's binutils releases have become the defacto stable release for Linux
> > distros. Don't let the 90 in the version string fool you. Sure, the code
> > might be a little less tested, but this is due to the fact that HJ's
> > releases more closely follow the CVS head.
> Personally I feel that less tested == less safe, [....]

True, but what release is "less tested"? From what i've seen, a great
deal of testing goes on after a so called stable release. Therefor a
"stable" release is only more tested if i know of and apply patches
for every bug discovered since release. It is far more likely that
HJ will apply those patches than that LFS will therefor HJ's releases
may actually be more tested.

> [....]
> > Let me summarise it this way:-
> > 
> > FSF Release:
> >   - Supports more OS's
> >   - Latest code from the stable branch of CVS
> >   - Not always up-to-date WRT to latest kernel,gcc,glibc subtleties
> Does this branch _not_ get HJ Lu's Linux changes piped back into it?  I
> was under the impression that it did.

I don't think anyone said that it didn't. But while we wait for that
we use a release that doesn't have those changes and is therefor in
effect less tested.

> > HJ Release:
> >   - For Linux only
> >   - More closely follows CVS head
> >   - Contains the latest subtle bug fixes 
> >   - Usually has latest fixes for non-x86 arches
> >   - A new release every time a significant bug that affects Linux is fixed
> >   - Possibly less stable due to newer code
> >   - Sometimes there is breakage when upgrading to a HJ release immediately
> >     after release so usually best to wait a week for the dust to settle
> ...and here you forgot
>     -  Is a _beta_ release.

Is _called_ beta.

While Greg did say that with HJ releases it is "usually best to
wait a week for the dust to settle" from what i've seen the same
is true of GNU "stable" releases.

So what i've seen leads me to believe that the stable/beta tag is
just a name.

> [....]

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