Hi all, I noticed that a new patch was put in the repo for Berkeley-DB that is nothing more than an upstream patch, verbatim.
Why the conversion? Why the adding to our repo? Upstream is notorious for changing the patch content but not changing the name. And we don't see changes. This can only be a bad thing. There is nothing gained by changing the patch and calling it an LFS patch. This can only be a losing situation (upstream changes it, but we have no way of knowing it). Why can't we just download from the upstream location and then apply it in the build? There is no reason why we can't. BLFS does it that way, as there cannot be any benefit by duplicating what upstream already provides. Actually, it is silly to duplicate it, only harm can come from it. I don't understand why we have to be a middleman and convert it for whatever reason. I'm only suggesting this as it is what I feel is best. Is there any reason why we need to duplicate it? What is wrong with just using the upstream patch? -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 21:31:00 up 45 days, 12:19, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
