gt;> #3532 Readline-6.3 patchlevel 3
>> #3532 Bash-4.3 patchlevel 8
>>
>> All of these call for adding patches from upstream. My question is
>> whether it should be the policy of LFS to add these types of upstream
>> patches to the book when upstream does not feel the
1.06.95 bug
>> #3532 Readline-6.3 patchlevel 3
>> #3532 Bash-4.3 patchlevel 8
>>
>> All of these call for adding patches from upstream. My question is
>> whether it should be the policy of LFS to add these types of upstream
>> patches to the book when upstream does not
gt;
> All of these call for adding patches from upstream. My question is
> whether it should be the policy of LFS to add these types of upstream
> patches to the book when upstream does not feel the need to release a
> new stable version to make these fixes.
I think we used to u
ese call for adding patches from upstream. My question is
> whether it should be the policy of LFS to add these types of upstream
> patches to the book when upstream does not feel the need to release a
> new stable version to make these fixes.
>
> In the case of BC, I think
policy of LFS to add these types of upstream
patches to the book when upstream does not feel the need to release a
new stable version to make these fixes.
In the case of BC, I think that it may be reasonable since there has
been no stable releases since 2006. However, the fact that the problem
testing (as I did with this one) then
> > we are working with a known patch.
>
> That is kind of a disturbing point about the way BLFS handles upstream
> patches. I've CC'd blfs-dev too.
>
> If the replacement patch is created with a different -P option, our
&g
up to a situation where we link to an
> untested (by us) patch. At least if we make a snapshot of what they
> released, and we commit it after testing (as I did with this one) then
> we are working with a known patch.
That is kind of a disturbing point about the way BLFS handles upst
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Upstream is notorious for changing the patch content but not changing
> the name. And we don't see changes. This can only be a bad thing.
> There is nothing gained by changing the patch and calling it an LFS
> patch. This can only be a losing situation (upstream changes it,
Hi all,
I noticed that a new patch was put in the repo for Berkeley-DB that
is nothing more than an upstream patch, verbatim.
Why the conversion? Why the adding to our repo?
Upstream is notorious for changing the patch content but not changing
the name. And we don't see changes. This can only be
