Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Sun Jan 11 14:57:44 PST 2004


Greg Schafer wrote:

>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.
>  
>
Thats what I meant.  Probably in the part that explains the patch.  
Something like: "This patch restores compatability with many scripts of 
several programs (e.g. head, tail, et al.) by restoring an option of 
-<number> instead of -n <number>.  This capability has been declared 
obsolete, but the traditional behavior is so pervasive that we recommend 
the patch."

Personally, I think the new behavior is more consistent and I won't put 
it in _my_ personal builds.

  -- Bruce




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list