Version in glibc

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at
Wed Nov 12 13:08:07 PST 2008

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree with Randy here, in that as we don't modify the upstream sources at all, there's no need to 'LFS' in the version string.  That, to me, suggests that there's something LFS specific about the sources.  I'd think it would suggest the same to upstream as well, such that should an LFS user or developer provide them with a bug report containing that string, they may well direct users back to lfs-dev based on that assumption.

I can see your point, but just to be a Devil's advocate here, while 
there's no modifications to the sources, there is a definite standard 
build instruction which affects the end result very much. If another 
distro were to build Glibc without any modifications, a label of some 
sort is still appropriate because they _way_ they build it is specific 
to their distro and identifies the resultant package with those build 

We've gone a long time saying that we aren't a distro. But in a sense we 
are. The book is _very_ specific as to its instructions. If you follow 
it you have an LFS system. (We even have our own bootscripts!). If you 
don't follow it you have either a mess or some sort of your own 
quasi-ma-jig distro type thingy.

At the least, presenting an option like this demonstrates to the reader 
just a little bit more about customizing their build.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list