LFS and BLFS

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Dec 15 05:47:23 PST 2007


Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Adding a section about the configurations (i.e.:
> actually used dependencies and actually passed ./configure switches)
> tested by BLFS editors and known bugs in them would help.

It should already be that Editors are using the book's
instructions as a preliminary build, then adding other
possible ./configure switches (within reason). Identifying
bugs should also be done.

If there is some bizarre combination the ends up with a
weird or broken result, we can identify it if it is known.
I think the situation with XFCE and HAL is the exception
more than the rule.

I'm still disappointed that XFCE was removed simply
because you felt that *maybe* it will become unmaintained.


> IMHO, it would be useful to mark unmaintained packages, too.

Well, I think we already sort of do. But first you would
have to define what an "unmaintained" package is. Is it,
1) any package that has a newer release available but has
not yet been updated in BLFS, or 2) any package that is
x release versions behind, or 3) some other criteria.

Until the definition of "unmaintained" has been established,
it is impossible to consider such a proposal. The Trac
system is how we identify packages that need to be updated
or fixed in some manner or another. Just because a package
does not get updated timely, or a bug fixed does make it
"unmaintained", IMO.

-- 
Randy



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list