Wether to release BLFS 5.1 or not ? was [Re: BLFS profile status and nALFS update]

Thomas Pegg thomasp at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Nov 2 10:03:26 PST 2004


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

Reviving an old thread here, but I have some new thoughts.

| I've been thinking that since LFS-6.0 is very close to release, and
| BLFS-6.0 will be very close behind it, that we shouldn't bother
| releasing a BLFS-5.1 profile (except as it currently stands in SVN), but
| rather we should start integrating the BLFS SVN changes into the profile
| right away. I do have an ulterior motive here, as this would save me
| some personal time doing the same steps <G>, but I think it's the right
| direction to go anyway.
After having started some updates to the profile from a fairly recent
render of BLFS, that it may not be worth releasing 5.1, and just move on
to 6.0. I fell that if we go ahead and release 5.1 it will be a release
of substandard quality, since a lot the features needed to drive the
profile are not presesnt in any ALFS tool at this point. Most notably
better dependency handling (this I would almost like to see something
similar to what portage does, it automatically queues required
dependencies in the build order.), and conditional execution are two
things.

Ok, after having said that, this brings up some thoughts on nALFS
development as well, I believe it was prevoiusly discussed that some
features that were slated for 1.3 be moved over to 2.0. However given
that nALFS 2 development is a bit halted at the moment and probably
quite a ways from being at the same quality as 1.2 is now. If I remember
that the one key feature, that is needed to make the profile really and
truly usable is it's dependency checking, it was proposed handle this
with a new logging DTD or something (Kevin please jump in on this, it's
a bit fuzzy to me), I think that should be moved back to a 1.3 feature,
so we can finally and hopefully release a very functional BLFS-6.0
profile, once nALFS-1.3 and BLFS-6.0 are ready.

Anyways those are just some thoughts I had, what do the rest of you think?

- --
Thomas
LFS User : 4729
Linux User : 298329
warpcore -  12:46:28 up  1:32,  3 users,  load average: 0.07, 0.07, 0.08
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBh8vus/fpwCov90QRAu6cAKCZjYA3Rz9oM7kRQwcg7vhKWUP53gCgkyAJ
BtlNVqOfzcMIXZxPBq77sNI=
=IQ34
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list