Outstanding issues for LFS-6.2
matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 20 11:50:27 PDT 2006
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> * Update test logs and failure info for toolchain: glibc, gcc, binutils
> I can provide logs for PIII as Archaic asked a couple weeks ago. I'll
> probably bootstrap a system using jhalfs for testing in the next week
> or so.
Thanks, I think this is ticket #1659 or at least very closely related to it.
> * Decide whether the l-l-h inotify patch is in or out. It is here:
I don't see any reason not to have it in. It's partially covered by
> I've tested this on my system based on LFS-SVN, but I see no reasons
> why it wouldn't work for 6.2.
Seeing as 6.2 will be branched from LFS-SVN then no, I can't see any
reasons it wouldn't work either :-)
> Needs a proper header and such before
> committing to patches, though.
OK, I'll deal with that tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.
> * Linux-2.6.17 or stick with 2.6.16 series?
2.6.16 definitely. 18.104.22.168 came out today, and I'd expect 22.214.171.124
out over this coming weekend or shortly afterwards. It's not crucial
that we have the absolute latest micro release but it'd be embarrasing
having to put out an errata within days of 6.2's release.
> * Package updates within same series (udev, e2fsprogs, shadow, bison?)
Those that I think are feasible/desired for 6.2 are marked as such in
trac (they're tickets #1804, #1806, #1815 and #1807 respectively for the
packages you mention. ). If anyone disagrees with the target milestone
on any of them feel free to make alternative suggestions.
> * The other 6.2 milestone bugs in Trac.
Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
Thanks for your input, Dan. It looks like we're pretty much up to date
in trac, which makes progress much easier to monitor.
More information about the lfs-dev