Current CVS release stable enough?

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Mar 30 15:39:03 PST 2004


On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:29:11 -0800 (PST)
Tushar Teredesai <linux_from_scratch at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:44:43 +0200
> >Jeroen Coumans <jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Joel Miller said the following on 03/30/04 23:31:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>Can you
> >>>>make an estimate when the next STABLE or PRE version is comming?
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>This is out of the scope of this list. Please repost to lfs-dev.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Please don't. I've answered this question at least three times
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Candidate for the FAQ then Jeroen? :)
> >  
> >
> I don't think so. Its pretty much common sense:-)

Yeah, sorry.  When I read the original chain of repsonses I thought that
Jeroen's comment was regarding "which version of the book should I
translate".  Now that I've reread it I see what you mean :)  I of
course agree, all questions along the lines of "should I follow
stable/PRE/CVS" should go to /dev/null and the customary cluebat
should be wielded.  If people don't know the difference between those
different version/release types then they really shouldn't be compiling
from source should they :)

Matt.



More information about the lfs-support mailing list