binutils

Dagmar d'Surreal no.spam at allowed.here
Mon Jan 13 20:43:05 PST 2003


On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 17:37, Greg Schafer wrote:
> 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.

You know, the difference between "most" and "all" isn't exactly a minor
thing, and in any case, would it make a difference to you if "most" of
your friends were jumping off a bridge as opposed to "all" of your
friends jumping off a bridge?  :)

> > 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 2.13.90.0.16 for Linux, which is
> > based on binutils 2002 1126 in CVS on sourecs.redhat.com plus various
> > changes"
> 
> True, but I did use the phrase "defacto" stable release.

Then you might want to hit dict.org with the phrase "de facto" then to
make sure you have the right definition.  These are beta releases.  If
one happens to be bad, it usually gets found somewhat quickly and
updated somewhat quickly, but this practically defines "moving target". 
When they do turn out to be foul, they tend to be more foul than a bad
stable release (one of which we haven't had in a long time).

> > 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" :-)
> 
> Greg

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list