Testing branch proposal

Alexander E. Patrakov see at the.sig
Mon Jul 5 02:45:45 PDT 2004


Jeremy Utley wrote:
> 1) Kernel 2.6
> 2) NPTL
> 3) Newer Glibc version
> 4) GCC 3.4.x

no-brainers, trivial but numerous BLFS patches, nothing to discuss

> 5) Udev

please solve this bug first: 
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864

> 6) Hotplug

If we want to support both udev and modular kernels, we need hotplug. 
This has been already discussed, the decision is here:

http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2004-May/046185.html

(well, it's too old, is it still current? although I like it)

It has been re-duscussed yesterday on IRC, when the opposite viewpoint 
(add all modules to /etc/sysconfig/modules, drop hotplug) has been 
expressed. But this minimalistic viewpoint is not the one of Matt of Gerard.

> So, my proposal is this:
> 
> Cut a testing branch, and pull hotplug, and anything else we've done
> related to it.  Stabilize, and call that LFS 6.0.  Meanwhile, the
> development team can continue to attempt to work out the issues with
> hotplug, perhaps having one of us interact with the upstream maintainer
> regarding the concerns we have.
> 
> To some of you who have "interacted" with me on this issue, this might
> come as somewhat of a shock that I would suggest this.  But, considering
> the situation, I think this might be the best solution for the time
> being - perhaps trying to add both udev and hotplug at the same time was
> too much at once.
> 
> Comments?

No shock, but a it's a wise decision on LFS stabilization. Thanks!

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov
To get my address: echo '0!42!+/6 at 5-3.535.25' | tr \!-: a-z | tr n .



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list