Some packages I'd like to see added

Randy McMurchy 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 
> versions 

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.

-- 
Randy



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list