randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Nov 3 10:46:39 PST 2005
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 11/03/05 12:32 CST:
> Hence, the difference between LFS and BLFS repos. Furthermore, to
> sync them would be difficult (well, not really difficult, but time
Thinking about this, I believe the main reason the BLFS repo was
created is because it was deemed that the BLFS editors needed a way
to timely update patches. There was a time when it would be weeks or
more before patches would be updated to the LFS repo.
However, this is not the case any longer. Jim and Tush are back,
Archaic now helps out and additionally, the BLFS editors have commit
privy to the LFS patches repo.
For the above reasons, we could probably dump the BLFS repo and
revert back to using the LFS repo. Only issue with this is, the BLFS
patches are currently all in one central location, with a URL that
points (via an entity) to the location. Using the LFS method, where
all the patches are in separate directories, according to the package
name, we would have to update every patch URL in the BLFS book.
However, creating a directory for BLFS SVN patches and adding symlinks
to the patches in this directory, would mean that we would only have
to update the patches location entity in the book.
I would volunteer to create the symlinks in a central BLFS SVN dir if
it is decided we should go that route.
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 18.104.22.168.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
12:39:00 up 39 days, 22:03, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.23
More information about the blfs-dev