cvs commit: LFS/FAQ why-not-version.xml

sklein at sklein at
Wed May 28 15:19:42 PDT 2003

sklein      03/05/28 18:19:42

  Modified:    FAQ      why-not-version.xml
  Stuff to get latest flex working (Evanidus@#lfs-support) and mention rms, not Tux
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.8       +8 -3      LFS/FAQ/why-not-version.xml
  Index: why-not-version.xml
  RCS file: /home/cvsroot/LFS/FAQ/why-not-version.xml,v
  retrieving revision 1.7
  retrieving revision 1.8
  diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8
  --- why-not-version.xml	22 May 2003 19:03:32 -0000	1.7
  +++ why-not-version.xml	28 May 2003 22:19:42 -0000	1.8
  @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
   using a version not in the book or varying from the book in any way
   is not a good idea.
   The IRC channel regulars have a saying, "FBBG".
  -As Tux, the resident bot, is quick to say,
  +As rms, the resident bot, is quick to say,
   this means, "Follow Book, Book Good."
   They and the people on the lists have helped many an unhappy newbie
   who deviated from the book during that first build.
  @@ -21,8 +21,13 @@
  -This release breaks building modutils, HJ binutils, and XFree86;
  -use 2.5.27 instead.
  +This release is nasty. Word in #lfs-support has it that it will work with
  +XFree86, the latest HJL binutils, and using "flex -l" with modutils,
  +which can be done with <ulink
  +However, you're on your own if you try this.
  +Don't expect any support.
  +Version 2.5.27 is more likely to work without weird hacks.
   <!-- Chris on #lfs-support says the patch doesn't work
   See <ulink
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-book' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-book mailing list