gcc 4.1 hath fallen

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Dec 7 19:25:10 PST 2006

On Thursday 07 December 2006 21:48, Kevin Day wrote:
> Which reminds me, will there be a future split in the HLFS mailings
> lists when dev picks back up?  Maintaining both stable and dev on one
> mailings "might" cause trouble.  HLFS is quite small in popularity
> when compared to the parent projects (LFS/BLFS), so mainting both
> hlfs-stable and hlfs-dev on the same mailing list may be doable.

I never thought about it. Some issues might be related to both stable and 
unstable, even if it's not obvious at first. For example, what looks like a 
bug in an Autoconf version, in unstable, might be a bug in an M4 version in 
both stable and unstable. With two mailing lists this bug in stable would be 
diagnosed in the unstable list.. so -stable users would actually need to 
subscribe to both mailing list, which defeats the purpose of having two 

The advantage to having two lists is that -stable users don't have to read 
about unstable changes. I think maintaining a verbose changelog/wiki/errata 
for -stable would be best, with a single mailing list.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/hlfs-dev/attachments/20061207/c3d206ad/attachment.sig>

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list