James Robertson jwrober at
Wed Sep 15 10:04:01 PDT 2004

dperkins at wrote:

>>Dennis J Perkins wrote:
>>>I just noticed that as of Aug 3, there is a 2.3.3 glibc tarball at the
>>>GNU site, but the test version of LFS is using 2.3.4 from CVS.  I don't
>>>know what the differences are between the two versions are, but I was
>>>wondering why testing is using 2.3.4.  Is 2.3.3 already that obsolete or
>>>is there something in 2.3.4 that is essential?
>>>I'm not criticizing this decision.  I'm just curious.
>>IIRC, there as discussion on this in the list a little while ago.  The
>>glibc 2.3.3 on the GNU site is not that current.  It is a tagged version
>>from last year.  It just took till now for them to create it as there is
>>still some controversy on tagged versions of glibc.  The glibc for 5.1.1
>>book is newer and we are getting some nptl stuff from the 2.3.4 version
>>for the new book.  Hence the reason we are using it.
> Thanks.  I can't say I am impressed on being forced to go to CVS instead
> of using an official stable version.

Yea, I am not a big fan of that either.  The glibc team is kinda forcing 
it on us.  The unstable branch does seem to be doing pretty good with 
the weekly snapshots.  Only one or two issues.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list