[RFC] LFS-6.1.1

Ken Moffat 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 mailing list