ken at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Oct 8 07:48:40 PDT 2005
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.
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the lfs-dev