Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
I would really like to get this into 6.2 so the BLFS
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
>>> show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
>>> current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
>>
>> I would r
The latest glibc and gcc releases are atleast 3 months old (which in
terms of LFS timeline is a long time). What is the point in releasing
a book that is obsolete even before it is published? I would vote for
updating the book to glibc-2.4.x and gcc-4.1.x and then stablize that
before releasing th
