[BLFS Trac] #1648: Mutt gcc4 issues

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Thu Mar 2 12:13:30 PST 2006

BLFS Trac wrote:

> Comment (by randy at linuxfromscratch.org):
>  But don't you think there is a reason that it is still be referred
>  to as a development version? We really need to explain this as it
>  directly conflicts with BLFS policy.

>  Where do we stop? If it is acceptable to migrate to development
>  versions of packages because it provides enhanced functionality,
>  or fixing brokenness to areas of the package that are only meaningful
>  to *some* users, I'd bet we could update every BLFS package to a
>  development version.
>  This is simply my opinion though. YMMV. Don't do anything just because
>  of my opinion, please. Just consider it and do whatever you think is
>  best.

I agree.  I would prefer to use "stable" packages and backport patches
when necessary.

  -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-book mailing list