[PATCH] fix erroneous "builddir" reference in libbb/Makefile

[Rich Felker]

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 04:56:50PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Why are we still supporting the 2.4 kernel then, if we won't build under
> > > any distro that has a 2.4 kernel?
> >
> > now you're just making stuff up ... seriously, where did you pull this out
> > of ?
> 
> I just checked and I was off by about a year: the 2.6 kernel (December 2003) 
> is one year newer than Make 3.80 (October 2002), so it would be another 12 
> months before we'd have to drop support for 2.4 by this metric.

This would be very unfortunate since 2.6 is still beta-quality code...

I know maybe this is getting off-topic, but I really hate the whole
"you must upgrade because I say so" mentality of so many projects.
Aside from critical security vulns (which should be fixed with simple
patches for old releases in addition to a new release), there's really
never a need to upgrade software unless you need the new features. New
releases simply increase size (except for BB :), lead to unexpected
compatibility problems, and waste the user/administrator's time
upgrading. My philosophy is "never upgrade unless there's a real
problem with the old version" as opposed to "always upgrade unless
there's a real problem with new new version".

The reason I like BB so much is that GNU packages (coreutils etc.)
continue to become more and more bloated and unusable with each
release. I've been using stuff from 1998-2000 for the past 6 years
with few problems, and I can't stand the thought of "upgrading" to
triple disk usage and make my system spend all its time swapping. BB
provides an excellent alternative to the path of ever-increasing
bloat, and I'm very happy that it exists. I just hope BB won't begin
depending on more of the bloatware I'm trying to get rid of at the
same time I'm trying to switch to it.

Rich