glibc bug in LFS-6.1 and its nALFS profile
sprior at geekster.com
Thu Oct 6 12:19:28 PDT 2005
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Sorry for not being explicit enough. Basically, as you've already
> eluded to, LFS-6.1, the nALFS profiles that are based on it, and the
> LiveCD that is dependent on both LFS and nALFS all need to be fixed.
> LFS-6.1 obviously can't be fixed in situ, so an errata will be
> published. nALFS would then implement the fix(es) specified by all the
> errata that apply to LFS-6.1, and the LiveCD would pick up the fixed
> nALFS profiles and also itself be built with the fixes mentioned in any
> applicable errata.
I believe that we shouldn't just have an errata section because then we
have a dumping ground for errors and no way to really state that these new
updates have been after those.
So we shouldn't have LFS 6.1 + errata, we should have a LFS 6.1.1 "stable"
release (because in a less perfect world there could even be a 6.1.2). This
shouldn't require NEARLY as much testing/review as what is required to make
a new stable release out of what is in 6.1 DEV.
More information about the lfs-dev