Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

James Robertson jwrober at
Wed Jan 14 11:33:26 PST 2004

Jamie Bennett wrote:

  > I'm not against putting the <stage> wrapper around offending
> packages but it becomes another note we need to put in the
> README and a little (very little) more maintainance. If it's
> of benefit to the actual people would use nALFS on the other
> hand then maybe it should be there. 
> Anyone else have views on this?

The patch is designed to fix a known issue.  If the book is keeping is 
optional, then we need a way to make it optional as well.  What do we do 
in the other options scenarios?  Kevin's original idea sounds fine to me 
if that is how we are chosing to handle such things.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list