> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 12/07/06 12:26 CST: >> >> If, as it appears, the versions we install in LFS are causing you folks >> in >> BLFS headaches, I'd prefer to just let you install the version(s) you >> require rather than force the latest version on you resulting in either >> of >> us having to track regressions. > > You are a bit confused, Matt. Nobody from BLFS said anything about > headaches. :-) BLFS (at the moment) works just fine with the most > recent versions of the Autotools.
Sorry, I meant the LiveCD crew, of course. I really must learn to think before typing :-) > And, by the way, numerous discussions have resulted in the Autotools > belonging in LFS. However, any discussions at this point (even if > they happen to be redundant to past discussions) are probably good > right now, just to stimulate activity within the project. I know, and that's the main reason for me adding my redundant opinion - purely to spark a bit of discussion. More seriously, though, I think Bryan's suggestion is a good way of dealing with the breakage that *can* be caused by using too recent a version of the autotools. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
