BLFS Staff (was Re: [Bug 107] samba-3.0.1)

Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational bill at
Fri Jan 2 04:24:43 PST 2004

n Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:

> On Friday 02 January 2004 12:19, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:03:23AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov
> > wrote:
> > ><snipped the technical stuff>

> And for the "BLFS is under-staffed" issue: this may or may not be true.

It is true, IMO. There are already efforts underway to try and address
this issue and long before the effort began, there was some considerable
thought being given to this. Without getting long-winded as to why I
believe this, count the packages, the number of maintainers and other
support resources and estimate the frequency of change. Compare that to
the LFS effort. As compared to LFS, *woefully* shorthanded.

How they manage to do as much as they do and keep the level of quality
they have is difficult to see.

> From my viewpoint, the additional issue is that there are no
> instructions on testing new BLFS packages (for LFS, we run builtin
> tests). Even two million people will not be sufficient if they don't
> know what to test, duplicate effort, miss special cases, etc. Of
> course Billy does a good work with SAMBA, but he should express his
> testing procedures by words so that others can read them and
> understand what is tested and what is not.

Not now. With the lack of resources, to do that would detract from any
possibility of having the book remain anywhere near current. I'm sure
that there are many issues that the BLFS folks would like to address,
but they have to take into account their lack of many of the resources
available to LFS and prioritize accordingly.

If they manage to stay somewhat current and do some basic "alpha" tests
before publishing, that is the right choice I think. And since the CVS
is noted to be "unstable", you should be aware that exhaustive testing
may not have been done yet and expect to *not* see the quality of a
finished product (even assuming you expected a finished product to have
some bugs).

For you to state publicly that it was not up to LFS quality standards
(in a previous post) was both unreasonable (in light of the resources
lack, which you could see as plainly as anyone) and was viewed as
"inconsiderate" by me, given all circumstances.

Whetehr or not it is true (ignoring the above things), does not mean it
needed to be stated. Especially in such an arbitrary manner. MO.

> What I want is to create a set of use cases for each package that
> allows to do so. We must perform these tests when deciding whether a
> new version is good. For SAMBA, one such case is presented in the
> book, and one is outlined above. I don't know where it is better to
> put such cases. Bugzilla is not a good place since we open a new bug
> for an updated version of the package, and all accumulated use cases
> remain with an old bug.

I suggest that that you can post these cases to blfs-dev and let the
editors decide where to put them. And from what I'm told by some BLFS
editors, it is reasonable for you to open a bug *without* first
discussing this on blfs-dev. Another says maybe not. A problem is that
BLFS has a different set of procedures than LFS for some things. I
haven't "learned" them all yet, I think. And even when I know, I
sometimes forget.

> And even for LFS packages, there should be different procedures for
> testing whether a new version is good and whether a known good version
> compiled correctly. Builtin tests that are part of the LFS book
> serve the second purpose quite well. But we just say "use a new
> version and see" when upgrading.

CVS - "/_\ Warning: Hazardous Materials Area"   ;)

> > PS - Why moan here? Why not be a responsible netizen and file a
> > proper bug report with upstream instead of posting usless comments
> > into a closed bug report that nobody is going to see?
> In other Bugzillas, the right action is to REOPEN an improperly fixed
> bug and append comments. I didn't know beforehand that I don't have
> enough rights to do that, and I thought (wrongly) that posting
> comments will suffice. Of course now I know a more proper action,
> thanks.

No, you do not. You now know what one person has told you and that may
be correct or not. It may depend on the day of the week or the
responder's mood ATM. I don't know. LFS and BLFS use Bugzillas
differently. I was so informed (reminded) in a recent thread. Maybe
the end result of of the attempts to document the *LFS org will produce
some documents that at least publish these "Policies", even if it does
not resolve the inconsistent usage. It's taking time though, as

A lot of folks don't seem to give a shit.

Bill Maltby,
LFS Organizational
Use fixed above line to mail me direct

More information about the blfs-book mailing list