Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?

To: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?
From: Wouter Klouwen <dublet%acm.org@localhost>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:36:28 +0000

Thor Lancelot Simon(tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost) said 2008.08.22 16:54:06 +0000:
> LFS doesn't work in -current so it's basically a moot point.  Unless someone
> steps up to adapt it to all the SMP changes in the kernel since 4.0 it may
> never really work again.

Great. What about all of us who actually use LFS where we can?

        --Wouter

Follow-Ups:
- Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?
  - From: Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.

References:
- WAPBL vs. lfs?
  - From: Geert Hendrickx
- Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?
  - From: Thor Lancelot Simon

Prev by Date: Re: anyone else having trouble compiling libc in i386-current?
Next by Date: Re: kernel/cpuctl: AMD power features lost?
Previous by Thread: Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?
Next by Thread: Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index