Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/09/06 23:10 CST: > I just want to state for the record that I think that lumping > glibc-2.4 in just because we're trying to make a release is a bad > idea. Glibc affects practically (probably) every single package in > the system. This is not on the same scale as removing hotplug.
I agree with Dan that trying to get an updated Glibc in the book just because there *is* a new release is not a good idea. Newer != better LFS just needs to start releasing more often. The Glibc-2.3.x/Gcc-4.0.x combination has been reliable now for months. Almost all of BLFS is confirmed to be stable with it. Introducing newer versions of these toolchain packages and releasing a month later is not wise. This combination may have subtle quirks not seen. The developers are probably not using these toolchain package versions, so we end up being Guinea pigs here. It is my believe that releasing with the known rock-solid combination of toolchain packages we currently use is the wiser, more sane solution. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [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] 06:23:00 up 15 days, 18:00, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.05 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
