On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:57:49PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > If it's available form the source, then I think we should use that instead of > renaming it for the version. However a short statement like (Still valid for > Links-2.2) after the patch URL wouldn't hurt anything. > > I think this would be reasonable whenever patch number does not agree with > the > release number.
I'll add that to my list of things to do. I'm currently in the middle of sorting subversion out, I had to pull it off my system after I discovered that it had linked libexpat.so to its own version. I didn't discover this until GDB complained about it.
pgprvgPzkXp0K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
