randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Apr 3 06:32:33 PDT 2006
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 06:20 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
First of all, thanks for your comments, I asked for them and appreciate
them. However, some different takes, for the sake of discussion.
> That seems like a lot of hassle.
No more than any other package update, other than a bit of testing.
But I render the book every hour on machine of mine, so testing Tidy
isn't really an issue.
> Where would this tarball be hosted?
Anduin, I suppose.
> Who would decide that the CVS was stable at a given point?
Well, it has been my experience that Tidy CVS was always stable.
Perhaps you weren't aware that it was not unusual for Tidy to have
3 releases in *a week* (actually, this was quite normal).
Secondly, it is *recommended* on the Tidy web site to use CVS if
you want any current version. Their tarball creation mechanism
> how is this different than any other package where we're trying not to
> use development versions?
It is different in that the maintainer has let everyone know that
the tarball generation mechanism is broken and to get current
sources from CVS if you want current sources. This is *much*
different than *all* other packages.
> The tarball from October is stable and works.
A tarball of KDE from 6 months ago also is stable and works. But
we update it! :-)
> If the Tidy people
> continue to use this odd system and get it fixed to produce the
> tarballs again, then we should use those. I don't think it's up to us
> to decide when another Tidy tarball should be released.
We aren't releasing a tarball, we are only following the suggestion
from the maintainer that if you want current sources, get them from
CVS as they cannot release tarballs right now.
rmlinux: [bogomips 3993.32] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.2]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 18.104.22.168 i686]
08:24:07 up 13 days, 14:58, 5 users, load average: 0.38, 0.17, 0.09
More information about the blfs-dev