Dead Project? (I hope not)

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Sat Aug 19 07:26:01 PDT 2006

Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
>> occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
>> as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
>> on at all any more within the LFS project.

As far as the LFS book is concerned, I've been doing my best, given my 
limited time, to keep the packages up to date and fix any other bugs 
that can easily be tackled within those time constraints.  We're down to 
10 tickets in trac now, which is the lowest I've seen it for a long 
time.  Another two shouldn't be too hard as they're just package 
upgrades to glibc and shadow.  The shadow one I've held off on because 
there's a known upstream bug and I've been expecting to see a fixed 
version out from upstream though it's not materialised yet.  Glibc I've 
not upgraded because I was put off by upstream's recommendation not to 
run it in production environments coupled with a couple of bugs I've 
read about on the lfs lists.  They've probably been fixed by patches, 
but I've lost track of those!  If anyone can recall what's required to 
get glibc-2.4 in the book, I'll gladly put it in.

> There really hasn't been much technical discussion on the lists
> recently, There hasn't been any major changes in a while. I think it's
> about time that LFS gets bumped up to gcc-4.1.1 and glibc-2.4.

LFS is already on gcc-4.1.1.  As for glibc-2.4, see above.

> And switches to a newer linux-headers package.

I'm waiting on linux-2.6.18 so we can use a supported upstream 
implementation, rather than rolling our own.  That's been delayed 
somewhat by Linus' recent break.



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list