On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 01/15/06 23:28 CST:
The package version is 1.7. The -5 is debian's current patch level on
top of the released 1.7 version.
(Adding the following as additional information to this thread. In
summary, I suggested that we simply pull out the changes to the popt.c
file from the Debian package and package it as a BLFS patch, and go
back to the 1.7 tarball with a BLFS patch)
However, if we want to use the trivial change to the popt.c file,
I think we should pull out that change only (just the change to the
popt.c file) and package that as a BLFS patch. And then go back to
the original 1.7 version with a patch.
My feeling is that whole patch (and version increment to the package)
is nothing but a bunch of fluff.
Agreed. AFAIK, nobody using the lfs family of books builds on m68k [
shout now if I'm wrong! ], so we should be ok with the original popt.c.
The version increment is the usual debian way of saying "we've updated
our local changes".
One *possible* downside to not patching is that clfs users on *some*
architectures might have to update config.guess and config.sub - but
that's not a big issue, we already have to do it for e.g. jpeg, glib-1,
gtk-1, a2ps (basically, it's a sign that upstream uses autofoo but
hasn't updated in a long time). Certainly, x86_64 does _not_ require
the patch to configure.
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
