Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Greg Schafer gschafer at
Mon Jan 12 15:04:22 PST 2004

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:34:13PM -0600, James Robertson wrote:
> I don't care what the other distros do.  We have never followed like 
> lemmings what the other distros do.

This "other distro" thing comes up often. Some folks generalise the point
far too much. The facts of the matter are, if we don't at least see what
the distros are up to then we are not doing our job properly. Otherwise
we're living in a blackhole and run the risk of falling by the wayside.

We generally do something because it is right, not because distro X does
such and such. If distro X does something because it is right then we will
do the same. We don't go out of our way to be unlike distros so I wish folks
would stop quoting this bogus "distro" argument.

> But has not been solved, really by the development team.  Who cares if 
> it has been on the table for 6 months.  That is irrelevant.  The problem 
> still exists and if we upgrade we still have to deal with it.  This is 
> part of my post.

Gasp. Clearly still not paying attention. The problem is solved! That's what
the patch is for. It's even recommended by the coreutils maintainers as a
transitionary aid!

> You only gave three reasons to upgrade - security patches, age of Glibc 
> 2.3.2 and compatibility with GCC 3.3.x.

This is another bogus argument that gets up my nose. LFS *upgrades* packages
all the time! It's an integral part of LFS! It's part of the LFS ethos! A
new package gets released - we use it! (Within reason - some major things
like 2.6 kernels take time to integrate). Face it, LFS likes to use the
latest released packages where ever possible and has done so for years!. So
again, please stop this bogus "reason to upgrade" argument. If new stuff is
broken then of course we have a reason *not* to upgrade.

> No coherrent thread on all the issues has been presented by you 
> on why we need to upgrade.

Ok, now I AM offended. If I wanted to, I could just shut the fuck up and not
say a word on this list. Instead, I often go out of my way and post updates
to keep folks informed and share my knowledge. Why do I even bother? I'd
suggest the lack of coherency is somewhere else.

> Instead of attacking my questions, why not answer them?  I was never 
> attacking your decision nor making judgments.  I was just looking for 
> more info.  Getting mad and attacking me is not what I would consider 
> good form.

Yeah, well, when one puts as much effort into LFS as I do then gets this
sort of crap in return, you should expect it.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list