On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I hadn't meant cut a branch from trunk and call it 'stable' - that would require a lot more testing. I meant take the current 'stable' book and do whatever minimally needs to be done to fix each bug and re-release. It really would be a 6.1.1 in that way.
I haven't been paying a lot of attention to this thread, but I thought somebody mentioned a glibc upgrade to 2.3.5 ? Now, that version worked fine for me (but then, so did 2.3.4, and even openssh on x86), but I don't think it's been tested in the context of BLFS-stable ? Sure, we all used it with gcc-3.4.4, but BLFS-dev has moved on to gcc-4. If somebody cuts a 6.1.1 branch with glibc-2.3.5 and gcc-3.4.4, that all needs to be tested.
If we're only talking about is incorporating the stuff in the errata, that's a different matter.
Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
