What is considered "development"?

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun May 23 04:45:06 PDT 2004


On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:53:45 +0200
Jeroen Coumans <jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> Matthew Burgess said the following on 22-05-2004 23:27:
> > 
> > I don't see that "keeping up to date technology-wise" has been
> > mentioned in the wiki either
> > (http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/index.php?pagename=WhatIsLFS). 
> > The only arguments there are for package updates because they may
> > provide bug/security fixes.  Maybe it was just my assumption that
> > LFS has always tried to teach the user how to build a *modern* Linux
> > system.  If this is the case, and it's a false assumption then I'd
> > like someone to let me know.
> 
> Matthew,
> If you find anything missing in the Wiki, then please *add* it; that
> is what it is there for! I agree that "using latest software releases 
> available" should be a guiding principle, and I just added it.

But what good is adding something that *may* have been based on my
misconceptions of what the LFS book aims to do?  My posting here wasn't
to negate the value of the Wiki, it was merely to ascertain that my
ideas of why LFS uses recent versions of software were correct.

As it is, the *general* consensus is that we should be using the most
up-to-date software (including the kernel, toolchain, etc.) as possible,
while maintaining the stability LFS has always enjoyed - and this isn't
just for bug & security fixes - it's also for keeping up-to-date from a
technological and functional standpoint.

With that said, I'll update the Wiki accordingly.  As a side note, what
is the preferred manner of transferring the Wiki material to a more
official area?  How do we achieve "closure" on things that have been
developed using the Wiki?

Thanks,

Matt.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list