glibc

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Sep 15 10:25:00 PDT 2004


On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:33:12 -0600 (MDT)
dperkins at techangle.com wrote:

> Thanks.  I can't say I am impressed on being forced to go to CVS
> instead of using an official stable version.

As has already been mentioned several times in the archives, this
situation has kinda been forced on us by the glibc developers.  There
was a discussion on their mailing list a while back stating that they
believe their CVS HEAD to always be stable, and therefore there's no
need to produce official release tarballs of it.  It was thought that
distro maintainers would/should have the necessary expertise to take a
snapshot from CVS and stabilise it to a point they deem sufficient
themselves.  With thanks primarily to those on the lfs-hackers list,
this is how LFS has progressed, as after all, we try and include
instructions for a modern/up-to-date Linux system, a part of which is
NPTL - only available via CVS glibc.

IIRC there was a mention not so long ago that there will be a
glibc-2.3.4. When that'll be is anyone's guess really :(

Cheers,

Matt.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list