Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 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.
>
Kernel 2.6.22.x doesn't know about lazy-count, but xfs-progs-2.9.6
forces use when creating a new filesystem. Stock LFS-6.3 can create the
filesystem fine, but can't mount it. 2.9.7 they reverted the change,
but it will be the default in a future release.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
