Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 02/10/06 03:25 CST: > I do not blame BLFS.
Thanks for personally clarifying this issue. > I am just saying that it is a huge (but doable!) > job for me to verify all BLFS packages. My point is that if we release > both LFS and BLFS now, I didn't realize there was a push to release. Surely there won't be a release soon as the toolchain just went under major surgery. I would think it would be a month or more before a testing branch was created. Additionally, there is thoughts of implementing the new build order. Either way, I don't see why we couldn't release a UTF-8 ready version of LFS, and a BLFS that is as best as we can do (with a caveat up front stating that the UTF-8 implementation is incomplete, and my not work correctly. Alexander, I'm not sure we'll ever achieve a perfect harmony between LFS and BLFS, however I believe that even still, the combination brings about a synergy that is worth releasing. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 06:31:00 up 138 days, 15:55, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.14, 0.40 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
