On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:06:54PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I would like to get the opinion of the community. Right now we have > four tickets: > > #3537 MPFR-3.1.2 Patchlevel 5 > #3536 Fix BC-1.06.95 bug > #3532 Readline-6.3 patchlevel 3 > #3532 Bash-4.3 patchlevel 8 > > All of these call for adding patches from upstream. My question is > whether it should be the policy of LFS to add these types of upstream > patches to the book when upstream does not feel the need to release a > new stable version to make these fixes.
I think we used to use _more_ upstream patches (not only bash and readline, but also vim ?). I don't recall why we dropped them. Maybe Matt knows, if he is around. I don't have any objection to using the latest patches for any package where upstream provides patches (I assume that most upstreams do not provide patches like this - if a bug is important enough, they make a new release). As you say, monitoring the availability of new patches makes things harder. Distro patches are a different matter entirely. You didn't mention fedora, but like debian they cover many different situations which most of us won't hit. Occasionally (more so in BLFS) debian or fedora have an important fix for a bug, whether a FTBFS (fails to build from source) or a new CVE. But many of their patches (same with arch and gentoo) are distro-specific. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
