HLFS-Testing status

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Sep 27 23:35:18 PDT 2006

I think I've reconsidered. The unstable book is quite unstable now, and 
there's no end in sight. I think I'd like to help with the stable branch and 
leave unstable alone for a bit. I wouldn't mind the change of pace. A stable 
branch should be obtainable in a reasonable amount of time.

I preffer the 2.4 kernel branch because no more new features are added to 
it... it is stable. Building linux-2.4 with gcc-3.4.6 should not cause any 
problems. Linux-2.6 is nicer, but gcc-4 is also nicer.... all development 
branches have nice new, and unstable, features. For a stable operating system 
we need stable packages, which are also old/mature and boring.

I don't want the stable branch to be high maintenance, as it would be with 
_any_ linux-2.6 kernel. Package versions shouldn't change, just occasional 
bugfix/security patches. I have always planned to maintain online versions of 
the stable book until the next stable release, which then retires the old 
stable. The changelog of the release version would be blank, the online 
version would have bugfixes which should hopefully only be from upstream for 
security/stability issues... but with two exceptions. The linux-2.4 and 
gcc-3.4 branches are only bumping versions for bug fixes. These two packages 
can change version in the online stable book, because the new version will 
not add new features. This way its easier for admins to maintain their 
hlfs-stable, allows developers to go back to unstable, and hopefully everyone 
is happy.

For the sake of svn history, I think its appropriate to branch -stable 
from -unstable, then revert it back to SVN-20060717, and tweak it from there.

For starters, as I see it:

binutils-2.17 <-- I can't think of any reason to use an older version
gcc-3.4.6 <-- Stable, but it can use the hardened-specs.h file
                     from -unstable.
glibc-2.4 <-- Much of the unstable features are only enabled with
                   linux-2.6. I can't think of any reason to use an older
                   version. With linux-2.4 only linuxthreads can be used.
                   To use gcc-3.4's ssp with glibc-2.4 I think a gcc-4 ssp
                   backport will be needed, and already exists.
shadow <-- This one is touchy. I think is the best version to
                  use, with patches. Whether or not blowfish is added to
                  this in -stable, I don't know.
I think the rest of the package versions in -unstable will be okay in -stable.

BTW, I've been occupied with family this week. I'll try to get back to hlfs 
development next week.


On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:41, Robert Baker wrote:
> To answer your questions...
> 1. I run SVN-20060717 in a few places, and to be honest I was surprised
> there was no effort to stabalize it as well. But I think that is more
> about what Robert Connolly was saying about how he doesn't want to stop
> focusing on improving his development version. (My current plan was to
> stabalize this version, with the kernel change.)
-------------- 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/20060928/32382459/attachment.sig>

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list