#1745: readline-5.1.004 ------------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner: [email protected] Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.2 Component: Book | Version: SVN Severity: normal | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ------------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I really don't understand stand how you surmised my goal as being simplicity. The key phrase was "critical bug". The community backed the establishment of UTF-8 compatability. From that point on, anything that was needed to make a package work for UTF-8 without regression (including swapping out packages and adding packages) instantly fell into the "critical bug" arena. From what I could tell, many of the bash patches were cosmetic. The memory errors were indeed worse. The breaking of the grep testsuite was really bad, too. So obviously some of the patches are necessary, and the inclusion of all patches up to a patch we need would be apropo. However, bash will keep patching away, and most of it will be cosmetic, so why should we add those patches? If patch # 50 comes out that fixes a critical bug, then by all means it would make sense to include the 1st 49 patches as that is what patch 50 should have been tested against. But until a critical patch is released, 20-49 (merely an example) need not be applied by the book. This is consistency with the book, not the other way around. Otherwise every package would have several upstream patches applied in the book. Let's look at shadow. The loss of su -c functionality is what most would call a "critical bug" so a backport is in order unless the promised new release is indeed just around the corner. However, shadow CVS has undergone more changes than just that since the release of 4.0.14 yet no one suggested backporting *all* the changes, and if someone did suggest it, it is highly unlikely that it would happen because it isn't critical. Bash has had multiple line wrapping problems at the prompt since 2.03 at least. It doesn't keep it from working, it just looks ugly. Obviously not a "critical bug". Anyway, I hope this clears up any confusion on my rationale. Simplicity just wasn't a part of my thought process here. The question of whether we should be tracking a (for all intents and purposes) CVS snapshot to fix minor niggles was what I was focusing on. -- Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1745> LFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/> Linux From Scratch: Your Distro, Your Rules. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
