Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Tue Jan 13 18:29:30 PST 2004


On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:27:07PM +0000, Steve Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 22:57, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Personally, I think the new behavior is more consistent and I won't put 
> > it in _my_ personal builds.
> Nor shall I be including it in mine, the attached script takes the pain
> out of the LFS build when you don't use the patch; I have this included
> as two functions in my main build scripts which get called after each
> package is unpacked and before applying any patches.  So far so good.

The main problem with this approach of automated fixage is that you're not
fixing the problems at the core. i.e. the upstream packages need to be fixed
eventually so someone needs to be sending patches upstream.

It could well be argued that those distros and folks like us who use the
"behaviour restoring" coretils patch are not assisting this effort to get
all the old usage updated. But I would counteract that argument by saying we
are not here to save the world from Posix stupidity. We are here to get on
with our job of building LFS.

> And Greg, there are many of us who really appreciate what you do!

Cheers cobber :-)



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list