BLFS-6.1.1

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Apr 7 11:18:52 PDT 2006


On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 20:53 -0600, Archaic wrote:

> I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly, but have a few questions:

My apologies for not answering them sooner.


> 1) What base system is being targetted?
>    a) If 6.1.1, then what about the gcc4-specific stuff?
>    b) If 6.1.1, how much testing has gone on with that base version?

I would say it would be for 6.1.1 and beyond, though I don't really
know how we can classify anything. 6.1.1 may have issues, but nobody
would know. I have been building LFS SVN for so long now, as it has
been so stable in the last few months, I wouldn't ever dream of 
building on 6.1.1.

And as soon as the udev/alpha thing goes in, no telling where the
BLFS book would stand with that, so a release may not be feasible.

And that really sucks because the book in the last few months has
probably been better than it ever has. Very few packages are/have
been more than one rev behind, and major programs have been *very*
current.

There have been 5 releases of BLFS. They have been spaced out at
6.5, 7, 10 and 4 intervals. It has now been 8 months since the
last BLFS release (a million years in open source time) with no
release in sight for many months. This would put it at a longer
interval of release than ever before. And the book has been kept
up perhaps better than ever before.

It just doesn't make sense. Yes, Gcc-4 threw a big curve-ball at
us, that we didn't have a good work-around for. 

I blame it on LFS. :-)

Though I'm joking, there is some truthness to this. It is my 
opinion that LFS should have released before this new merge is
taking place. It was a *very, very* stable platform. Perhaps
the best LFS platform I have used. After this merge, it will 
be quite some time before BLFS testing has been as thorough
as the testing the pre-merge has received.

Please don't take this as a gig at the LFS team. They do a 
helluva good job for the manpower they have. I just feel that
releases are too infrequent. Is it hard to release? I wouldn't
think so. Why can't we release more often? Stability hasn't
been an issue.

Sorry for rambling.


> 2) How many packages have not been updated in a while, perhaps even
>    since 6.1?

I would say not too many, that actually have updates available.


> 3) How much time do you see for testing? OOo and Xorg seem to be
>    slightly problematic still guaging blfs-support threads (haven't
>    tried myself yet).

Ooo probably will *always* be problematic. Anything that takes 6
gigs of diskspace and as many hours, *or days* (depending on the
speed of the machine), is going to be problematic.


> 4) What will be the book's version?

I would say 6.1a, so as not to be confused with LFS-6.1.1. Again
in the middle of releases, it is hard to say what the target is.

-- 
Randy

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 2.6.14.3 i686]
13:02:25 up 17 days, 19:37, 4 users, load average: 0.35, 0.19, 0.11





More information about the blfs-dev mailing list