Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 14 13:39:51 PST 2004


Jamie Bennett wrote:

> 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
> 
> 

Yep, that was the thread I was thinking of.  I should have put it in my 
post.  Looks like this one may be a no brainer.

James



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list