Outstanding issues for LFS-6.2

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Mon Jun 26 06:19:17 PDT 2006

On 6/26/06, Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > The latest glibc and gcc releases are atleast 3 months old (which in
> > terms of LFS timeline is a long time). What is the point in releasing
> > a book that is obsolete even before it is published? I would vote for
> > updating the book to glibc-2.4.x and gcc-4.1.x and then stablize that
> > before releasing the next version.
> For that
> reason, I'd much prefer to release 6.2 a.s.a.p then have a release
> another 2 or 3 months down the line with an upgraded toolchain, assuming
> it can stabilise in that time.

I have to agree with Matt.  It doesn't make any sense to push in the
two biggest changes to the build at the last second at a time when the
LFS book is underdeveloped.  We're trying to put together a stable
book. What's in SVN is very stable.

Bumping up glibc and gcc adds on at least 2 months for stabilization.
That's going on the assumption that it will be heavily tested by a lot
of people. It doesn't look like that would be the case right now.

I just don't see what the harm is in getting out a release right now
with a very stable toolchain producing a system that's been known to
be stable for months. Why screw the effort that's gone into testing
the current combination because we're behind schedule?  We can put out
a book right now and then get glibc, gcc and binutils into svn where
they belong.

All my opinion.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list