Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/04/06 08:20 CST: > Please apply the patch, and, in the case if it is unsuitable as a whole, > please don't revert parts that are actually OK.
I thought it was almost 100% choice of folks that responded to use DB instead of the GDBM database. I realize you commented on this. But, if it means taking a day (week, whatever) more to add it to the patch, shouldn't we do it now, and not later, after GDBM is put in the book? We removed a perfectly good NetTools package from LFS because it was no longer maintained. I can't see justifying putting GDBM in the book when there is a more useful and more widespread package available, that the community voted was their choice. Can't the patch be delayed until DB is put in? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 09:16:01 up 101 days, 18:40, 3 users, load average: 1.15, 1.11, 0.70 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
