Ag. D. Hatzimanikas a.hatzim at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 08:28:59 PST 2007

On Sat, Dec 15, at 07:55 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> > Yes thats the truth.
> > Example one. I spend much of my time yesterday to check the pdf generation in
> > mutt.
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Ag. We Editors try to
> work out the kinks and then document our results. What "example"
> is portrayed above? That you had to work out a minor kink in
> the PDF generation and document your findings?

But it wasn't just a minor kink for me, because I had to install tools
that I don't use and find out by grep'ping' log files and Makefiles
why JadeTeX didn't provided the desired output. Then I noticed the empty 
variable, which lead me eventually that DocBook DSSSL Stylesheets was an 
obligatory package.
I should have know that but I didn't, so I've spend much of my time on
Well I had the option to ignore it, but I didn't for that particularly package,
because I care enough about mutt to do that job with pleasure.

In contrast I had to update flac -- because out of question there were some
very serious vulnerabilities (it was in the headlines for days all over the
web) -- so... at first I should have tried to built the xmms plugin (is a package
that I don't use because its graphical and because depends to the outdated
gtk1 toolkit) and secondly I should have check the --enable-exhaustive-tests 
Well I didn't check both of the switches, simple because I thought that the 
update was much more important, than an outdated plugin and a test that was 
meant mainly for developers. But I was honest enough to report my
inaccuracies in the track ticket.

Again in contrast, LFS hasn't such dilemmas. They know what they want and
they take only what they want. They prefer the su from shadow, they
patch coreutils. Instead in BLFS we have to choose from a myriad of choices and
configurations that simple is not possible to test them all.
And they are 300 of packages and not 50 which all of them under exhaustive testing
for years.

Thats why I said we should try, either to make the Book more compact, follow
a linear build and towards a direction e.g, Gnome or else we should
try to find people that will maintain specific programs that they care
and use.
To update LPRng without to use it actually, is without a question a brave action,
you deserve all the credits you can take (I already gave you them), but
it's not what I personally like. This is a community project and there
is must be someone that uses LPRng. Our job is to find that man and make
him to like to update/maintain the package, like Christian did for XFS. 
If there isn't such a man, then comment out. Much more honest than to
claim that the package instructions works.


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list