Tushar Teredesai wrote:
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a book that is obsolete even before it is published?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
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
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a book that is obsolete even before it is published?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
On 6/26/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> 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 a book that is obsolete even before it is published?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
> u
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
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I propose to send all a message asking for a statement assigning of the
copyright for their contributions to Gerard.
I don't think copyright assignment is necessary, and is actually likely
to hinder progress as it is a legal process which will likely take time
and money to
Jim Gifford wrote:
Bruce, I would rather go with.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ecl1.php
After a very brief look over that license I can't tell any fundamental
differences between the ECL and CC by-nc-sa license in Bruce's patch.
Would you care to elaborate on *why* you prefer the ECL o
* Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-26 17:01]:
> Jeremy (Not Huntwork?)
That's probably Jeremy Utley. These days you can find him in
#lfs-support on IRC as J_Man.
--
Miguel Bazdresch
http://thewizardstower.org/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linux
Matt thinking about his more carefully then trying to explain myself. I
will say, this is a decision that needs to be made by Gerard and not us.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 6/26/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I'm happy to upgrade the toolchain on the understanding that this
will set a 6.2 release back by at least another 6-8 weeks. It also
means that all of the stabilisation work done by the BLFS team is more
or less negated as they've bee
