Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
though I would like to have one point clarified, please. I've heard it said before that major version numbers in LFS were supposed to represent
In the past the LFS major version number was increased when a major package in LFS had a major release. For instance, going from linux-2.4 to linux-2.6. From gcc-2.7.2.3 to gcc-2.9x, to 3.x maybe to 4.x (though it sounds like the change from gcc-3 to gcc-4 wouldn't warrant a major LFS version increase). And more so with Glibc since it was less than painless to upgrade an existing system to a new major Glibc version and expect everything to remain functional (sometimes backward compatibility wasn't up to snuff).
Those were more guidelines than hard rules. For instance, just because the change to gcc-4 is a new major GCC version increase, it doesn't appear to warrant us doing the same thing. Sticking it into an LFS minor release would be fine.
If you wanted to put it in more simpler terms: increase major LFS version when packages are upgraded that dramatically change the LFS system and may no longer be compatible and a rebuild from scratch would be recommended. It's at that point the LFS major version increases to signify a version that is not a drop-in replacement (you should be able to install all of LFS-6.2 onto an LFS-6.1 system without an issue. Doing the same with LFS-7 onto LFS-6.x may not work).
Hope that clears it up a bit. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
