HLFS-Testing status

Robert Baker bobb at netslyder.net
Thu Sep 28 07:14:39 PDT 2006

I ended up moving with binutils-2.16.1 because of a compile error. I am 
sure there was probably a patch for 2.17 that makes it compile right. I 
was just trying to move through the list and get the major kernel 
version change made. As it is I don't have the error at hand, but I can 
most definately reproduce it. (It happened repeatedly in the chapter 5 
cross link binutils untill I downgraded it)

I definately understand your point of view on the kernel versions. I am 
just wondering if you think there is a good reason not to include the 
reccommended gcc-2.95.3 for compiling the kernel.If your just saying it 
should be fine without it I still think we should follow the 
reccommendations of the kernel devs and use it. Better safe than sory.

Thank you for taking time to put your 2 cents in. I am excited to hear 
that you are interested in the release of a stable branch too.

Rober Baker

Robert Connolly wrote:

>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.
[This E-mail scanned for viruses courtesy of Netslyder, Inc.(http://www.netslyder.net)]

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list