Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I've heard no recent talk of cutting a testing branch from trunk in
preparation of a release, and in the meantime, I think we owe it to
our readers to supply a stable LFS with all these known items fixed.
I have personaly stopped building stable because stable isn't st
Joe Ciccone wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I've heard no recent talk of cutting a testing branch from trunk in
preparation of a release, and in the meantime, I think we owe it to
our readers to supply a stable LFS with all these known items fixed.
I have personaly stopped building stable be
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I hadn't meant cut a branch from trunk and call it 'stable' - that would
require a lot more testing. I meant take the current 'stable' book and do
whatever minimally needs to be done to fix each bug and re-release. It really
would be a 6.1.1 in that
Ken Moffat wrote:
I haven't been paying a lot of attention to this thread, but I thought
somebody mentioned a glibc upgrade to 2.3.5 ? Now, that version worked
fine for me (but then, so did 2.3.4, and even openssh on x86), but I
don't think it's been tested in the context of BLFS-stable ? S
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
I haven't been paying a lot of attention to this thread, but I
thought somebody mentioned a glibc upgrade to 2.3.5 ? Now, that
version worked fine for me (but then, so did 2.3.4, and even openssh
on x86), but I don't think it's been tested in the con
