Greg Schafer gschafer at
Mon Jan 13 15:37:41 PST 2003

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:32:31PM -0600, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> Why?  Not all major distributions use the HJ releases, although Debian
> and SuSe are currently using them.  In the past almost all of the
> distros have done a release using either the HJ Lu variant *or* the GNU
> version depending entirely on which one contained the most
> enhancements/bugfixes they felt were needed.  

So currently we have Redhat, Debian, Suse and Gentoo all using the HJ
releases (plus others we haven't checked). That accounts for a fair chunk of
the total Linux user base don't you think? LFS may well be in the minority.

> Personally I feel that less tested == less safe, unless there's some
> important bugfix that makes the devil you do know more dangerous than
> the devil you don't know.  This is the number one reason I go with the
> GNU public release version unless I have a specific reason to think it's
> broken--and at the moment I know of no compelling reason to prefer the
> .90.0.x release over the .2.1 release.

Yes, a very good point. Binutils is a complex area and I wish knew more
about it so that I could be certain about the subtle differences between the
2 releases and what is gained (or lost) by using one release over another.

> Does this branch _not_ get HJ Lu's Linux changes piped back into it?  I
> was under the impression that it did.

Maybe. Changes from the mainline get merged back into the stable branch
periodically so I would assume this may include stuff in the HJ releases.

> "This is the beta release of binutils for Linux, which is
> based on binutils 2002 1126 in CVS on plus various
> changes"

True, but I did use the phrase "defacto" stable release.

> It's your call to make, but I think it would only be caving to "peer
> pressure" from other distros at this particular point in the codebases.
> That having been said, it wouldn't be terrible for the HJ releases to be
> used in the CVS versions of the book when needed.

Well, its not my call really. I'm just a humble LFS'er who happens to find
the core of the system the most interesting. I just call it how I see it.
And I also try to keep up with the various toolchain related lists which
certainly keeps my eyes wide open. You are right about the "peer pressure"
thing tho'. But I suppose that is the essence of what I'm talking about. I
for one, would feel a whole lot more comfortable if LFS were "doing it like
the pro's" :-)

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