BLFS Trac wrote: > Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > But don't you think there is a reason that it is still be referred > to as a development version? We really need to explain this as it > directly conflicts with BLFS policy.
> Where do we stop? If it is acceptable to migrate to development > versions of packages because it provides enhanced functionality, > or fixing brokenness to areas of the package that are only meaningful > to *some* users, I'd bet we could update every BLFS package to a > development version. > > This is simply my opinion though. YMMV. Don't do anything just because > of my opinion, please. Just consider it and do whatever you think is > best. I agree. I would prefer to use "stable" packages and backport patches when necessary. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
