randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Apr 7 12:18:31 PDT 2006
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 14:04 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the insight, Bruce. Though I don't agree that a release is
"a huge amount of work", to me it is just a couple/few hours. That isn't
huge when you look at the big picture. But, like you, I don't know that
a 6.1.1 to "match" LFS-6.1.1 is a good thing. I was more thinking of
a bastard version (different than the LFS numbering and kind of a
middle ground release) to give folks something that we consider stable
and they can get the warm and fuzzies.
There are many out there that won't use SVN for fear of instability.
I, however, know better. A middle-ground release would give users
this 'stable' feel, yet having reasonably recent and current
packages. To me, a LFS-6.1.1, BLFS-6.1 build would be an antique.
But the average Joe doesn't know that.
I have not looked one bit at the Udev update of LFS, so I cannot
comment on it. I have built LFS since the UTF-8 merge and it seems to
be the same as it was (instructions are good and it runs stably and
smoothly, as best as I can tell. I hope the Udev update affects the
system as little as you say it does.
If in fact all it does is change the way the devices are made (and we
end up with the same ones) and the Udev rules/permissions change (we
can handle that), it should be as you say, relatively painless.
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 220.127.116.11 i686]
14:09:18 up 17 days, 20:43, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.38, 0.32
More information about the blfs-dev