Proposal for an LFS-6.3

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Thu Feb 8 06:27:45 PST 2007


On 2/8/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <patrakov at ums.usu.ru> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > The current LFS SVN has an entirely upgraded toolchain, and many
> > updates to core packages since the 6.2 release. I just built it and
> > it appears rock solid.
>
> That's because you didn't use any CFLAGS. If you had -Os in CFLAGS, you
> would hit ticket #1935.

Somewhat of a non-issue since we're telling people not to set their
CFLAGS, but I'd rather see it get fixed, too. Fortunately, gcc-4.1.2
should be here soon as Matthew mentioned the other day:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-02/msg00061.html


> Also, there are some GCC-4.1.1 related issues in BLFS Trac.

I think most of those are known and should be folded in fairly soon.
But, that's also what having the development version is about.

Another think I was thinking about. Glibc has been getting released
much more rapidly. LFS SVN is on 2.5, but most of us have been using
2.3.6 for a long time. I would say that this requires the most
attention. Robert has put together a patch with updates from the
upstream 2.5 branch. We may want to apply some or all of it:

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/glibc/glibc-2.5-branch_update-1.patch

For GCC-4.1 problems in BLFS, they can usually be worked around for
that particular package, which means they can be fixed after the LFS
release. But if there are issues with the C libraries, that usually
only means a fix to Glibc (think samba and xorg-server over the past
couple years). So, I would hope that some of us on the BLFS side would
get their systems rebuilt against LFS SVN and make sure everything's
good before trying to cut a new release.

--
Dan



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list