DJ Lucas wrote these words on 03/23/08 07:25 CST:
> {warning}{para}The XFS developers regularly remove the current package
> when a new package is available. Unfortunately, this has led to severe
> incompatibilities in the past due to kernel version requirements in new
> versions of the package. Using a version that has not been tested by
> BLFS developers is strongly discouraged.{/para}{/warning}
Actually, since the URL we're going to list as the package source
will be on Anduin, could we change it to a caution instead of a
warning and then rephrase it (to include the URL of the developer's
versions) to say that using a version *not in the book* instead of
"not been tested by BLFS developers".
"Not been tested by BLFS developers" implies to use the version we
list in the book, but for something so important, why use language
that requires the user to figure that out when we can just use
language that means exactly what we mean.
> Anyway, Is that sufficient warning, or
> should it mention the specific errors (lazy-count=1, and unmountable
> file system...) to drive it home?
I'll be honest, Alex's original message was so technical (and for
me it held very little interest as I don't use the package) that I
don't remember what the "severe incompatibilities" were. Could
someone describe them in layman's terms.
Thanks.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
08:28:01 up 34 days, 23:16, 1 user, load average: 0.50, 0.21, 0.12
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
