gschafer at zip.com.au
Sun Jan 11 14:27:34 PST 2004
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:26:36PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer. That explains the problem.
> Now, the issue is how LFS should handle it. IMHO we should include a
> patch that enables the old functionality. We should also explain the
> issue in the text and let the user decide whether to use the patch or not.
Yes, that's basically what the proposal is. Except with one major difference
-- the LFS book must take a default stand, and that stand is to apply the
patch. Leaving it optional will most certainly lead to grief. We cannot
leave that avenue open. But I suppose we could word it in such a way where
the consequences of not patching are clear.
More information about the lfs-dev