lfs-01 at thewizardstower.org
Sat May 22 12:50:27 PDT 2004
* Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org> [2004-05-22 21:05]:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >IMO, folks should stop using the autotools example to support the point
> >that "not required" packages are included in LFS. For more info, see the
> >archives for this month.
> Sorry for that, I know it's not a good example, but obviously there are
> others (some of which have already been removed in unstable specifically
> because they don't fit this definition of "required").
Adding more logs to the fire: linux 2.2.x meets all requirements. Why
are we using 2.4 instead?
More information about the lfs-dev