Randy McMurchy wrote: > Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 12:42 CST: > >> I'm using 2.6.17.4 but I've had a look at 2.6.16.27 (which is what LFS >> 6.2 uses). 2.6.16.27 satisfies the 1.3.6 test, so I would argue using >> 1.3.6 would tie in better with the the LFS itself. > > Good enough. Again, thanks. So, we could simply fix the test in the > 1.3.5 version and drive on, or go with Andy's recommendation to update > to 1.3.6. > > I'm willing to go to 1.3.6, on Andy's recommendation, even for the > 6.2.0 release. Andy's comments, IMO, have more than qualified him > to recommend this version, and vouch for its stability.
I agree. It would appear an upgrade for 6.2.0 is appropriate. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
