Some packages I'd like to see added

Randy McMurchy randy at
Thu Dec 30 06:29:09 PST 2004

Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> That was my intention right from the beginning of suggesting this - 
> after 6.0 is released.  And, as I said, I'm more than willing to help 
> out by writing the initial pages for them, and submitting as patches to 
> the BLFS XML, as I've done with a couple of previous updates - I hope 
> doing this is helping you guys out a little - I know keeping BLFS up to 
> date is rather difficult, and with my frequent building, I come across 
> updates quite easily.

Jeremy, please understand what I'm about to say is directed as
a way to explain the BLFS process (as I understand it). I'm not
directing these comments as an argument against you.

There is more to updating a package than simply changing the
version entity and ensuring it builds correctly. All of the
below must happen before a version update is added to the

1. The build must be tested against the *exact* version of LFS
that BLFS targets.

2. It must build successfully using all of the identified dependencies,
and not have issues with any of these dependencies.

3. It must interact with any and all other packages that may utilize
it at run-time.

4. The dependency list needs to be checked, both existing ones, and
any possible new ones. These change all the time. Not every package,
every time, but enough to warrant a very thorough read of README,
INSTALL and the output from ./configure --help.

5. The installed programs need to be checked over, and added/removed
as required.

6. The text needs to be checked over for any changes in the
operation and/or utilization of the package.

There's probably more, but I think you get the picture. Even if you
send in a patch, an editor needs to accomplish all of the above before
applying it. Right?

>> I have a patch for the Fortune Makefile, I suppose I could write
>> a hint that would just take me a few minutes. I too agree, that
>> there's really no place in BLFS for Fortune.
> I don't know what fortune package you guys are building - I've always 
> used the fortune-mod-9708 referenced in the old hint, and that 
> particular package has a few different options that are passed into the 
> makefile to control the build.

I made a patch. It was easier to me. And the version you reference
is the one referenced as the xscreensaver depend.

>  But yes, fortune would probably fit best 
> in chapter 10...and if you don't want Xscreensaver to keep saying 
> "/usr/games/fortune - no such file or directory", it should probably be 
> added.  Because of this, I'd almost consider fortune to be an essential 
> thing for Xscreensaver.

I will do some checking and see what it takes to disable fortune
by default (if possible) from xscreensaver. If this is possible,
I'll get it added into BLFS before the release.


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list