BLFS-6.1.1

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Fri Apr 7 12:04:58 PDT 2006


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

>> 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.

I agree.  LFS 6.1.1 was released in November, but its not much of a
change from 6.1 which was last July.

> 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.

I'm not sure it will be that much of a problem.  The alpha thing will do
nothing to BLFS.  The udev update fixes how devices are recognized, but
the only thing there that I see affecting us is the udev rules.
Compared to everything else in BLFS, this is not a major factor.
The big deal is using GCC4 and it feels like we've been using that for ages.

> 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. 

Overall, I am not that eager to do a BLFS 6.1.1 any more.  I think LFS
6.2 will be in the testing phase relatively soon and running it against
BLFS is one of the big tests.  Releasing a new BLFS release, as you
know, is a huge amount of work.  Quite honestly, I don't believe the
cost is worth the benefit.

Before the last BLFS release, we put out a notice that users should use
the svn version of BLFS against LFS 6.1.  We should do the same thing
for LFS 6.2 and work to get BLFS 6.2 out ASAP after LFS 6.2.

  -- Bruce




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list