binutils

Dagmar d'Surreal no.spam at allowed.here
Mon Jan 13 20:51:43 PST 2003


On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 17:21, Seth W.Klein wrote:
> Dagmar d'Surreal <no.spam at allowed.here> 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.

I can't help but think this is a little like arguing about how blue the
color blue actually is.  Yes, a great deal of testing goes on after a
stable release, but the fact of the matter is a far larger number of 
people have tested the code that comprises a GNU release than the number
of people (a small handful) who are involved before an HJ release.

> > [....]
> > 
> > > 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.

I just don't know how to respond to this incredibly flawed line of
reasoning.

> > > 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.

Elephants are _called_ elephants, but that doesn't mean they fit neatly
into ones pants pocket!

> 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.

Then pay closer attention because you're missing the whole point of the
alpha-beta-final release-cycle thing.

-- 
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