Matthew Burgess matthew at
Thu Dec 7 10:47:04 PST 2006

> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 12/07/06 12:26 CST:
>> If, as it appears, the versions we install in LFS are causing you folks
>> in
>> BLFS headaches, I'd prefer to just let you install the version(s) you
>> require rather than force the latest version on you resulting in either
>> of
>> us having to track regressions.
> You are a bit confused, Matt. Nobody from BLFS said anything about
> headaches. :-)  BLFS (at the moment) works just fine with the most
> recent versions of the Autotools.

Sorry, I meant the LiveCD crew, of course. I really must learn to think
before typing :-)

> And, by the way, numerous discussions have resulted in the Autotools
> belonging in LFS. However, any discussions at this point (even if
> they happen to be redundant to past discussions) are probably good
> right now, just to stimulate activity within the project.

I know, and that's the main reason for me adding my redundant opinion -
purely to spark a bit of discussion.  More seriously, though, I think
Bryan's suggestion is a good way of dealing with the breakage that *can*
be caused by using too recent a version of the autotools.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list