Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Jamie Bennett jamie at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 14 12:55:56 PST 2004


On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 19:33, James Robertson wrote:
> 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.

From what I can see the patch will be default for the book. See
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2004-January/041222.html

> James

-- 
Jamie Bennett		-	jamie AT linuxfromscratch DOT org
GnuPG signature		-	http://www.linuxuk.org/gpgkey.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/alfs-discuss/attachments/20040114/4b64a5ef/attachment.sig>


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list