Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Mon Apr 17 11:39:04 PDT 2006

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 13:15 CST:
>> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old 
>> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone 
>> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already 
>> obsolete?
> This issue was just discussed. It was determined that by going with
> what we have, we can get a stable release out *now*. Making these
> changes you propose would cause the release to become even more
> delayed, with no assurances that we would end up with a stable
> product.
> Newer is not necessarily better (this sentence simply an opinion).

I am also planning on making a blfs-6.2 branch when lfs creates a
6.2-testing branch.  In the meantime, I'd like to whittle down the
outstanding bugs.

The exact timing will be up for discussion.  We don't want to do it too
early so we don't have to update both trunk and the branch, but we don't
want to confuse things either by not having a separate branch when LFS
trunk goes to gcc-4.1/glibc-new.

  -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list