Some packages I'd like to see added
randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Dec 30 07:04:05 PST 2004
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Archaic wrote:
>>> My concern is the number of packages that get stale because we don't
>>> have enough manpower to constantly update packages (just like exim). I
>>> would understand if cmmi wasn't enough, or a 2 minute read through
>>> README or INSTALL didn't cover what you needed to know.
>> This is borderline BS.
>> Most packages are very well kept up. You pick one package out of
>> the nearly 400 that was a few revs behind and use it to say "the
>> number of packages that get stale"
> I respectfully disagree. I can build BLFS SVN at any given time, and
> end up with 10 to 15 packages that are NOT current. Of course, stale
> probably means different things to me and you. I consider anything
> that's not the currently released version to be stale. There's about
> 8-10 packages in current BLFS-SVN that are not at their latest released
Well, yes, to me, unless there's a security update involved, one rev
level doesn't get somebody that much. Of course, one rev level sometimes
is a major update. Each one is different. Many package updates are to fix
a bug on a particular platform or other such thing that has no bearing
on the usability for most folks. So we'll just have to A2D on what is
considered stale. :-)
But using your figures for what is not current, let's use 10 as it's
such an easy round number. Let's say there's 350 packages in BLFS.
That's less than 3%.
That's why I say that someone on the BLFS team saying that "the number
of packages that get stale" is borderline BS.
More information about the blfs-dev