LFS and BLFS
randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Dec 15 09:08:09 PST 2007
Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> 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.
And your perseverance is duly noted and appreciated.
> In contrast I had to update flac -- because out of question there were some
> very serious vulnerabilities
And as you mention, removing the vulnerabilities are the most
important thing. Keep in mind that the XMMS plugin is at this
point in a state of flux. There is nothing wrong with annotating
in the instructions that something isn't tested. If it is
documented, it is better than nothing.
As far as the test suite goes, that is such a minor issue that
regardless if the comment (how long it takes to run) is
inaccurate, simply comment that out, or say it wasn't tested
in this version. Or simply do nothing. Inaccuracies of such
little importance don't really matter in the big picture of
> 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.
I can't help but think that something like this would
turn BLFS into just another distro. And an exceptionally
difficult one at that.
Let's see what other comments come about in regards to
> 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.
But you don't understand Ag, the package instructions *do* work.
We are only providing instructions to build the package. If it
doesn't work after a successful build, we can only hope that a
member of the community lets us know this. If we receive notice
that a package does not *work* as designed, then we'll take an
We just can't swear that every nuance of a package works. For
that matter, do you play FLAC-encoded audio files? I know I do
not, but I wouldn't hesitate to update the package.
I don't see any difference in this example and the LPRng example.
I update ImageMagick all the time, usually with almost all the
dependencies installed. To fully test the functionality of each
and every possibility that ImageMagick can provide would be
There comes a time when we simply have to put some faith in the
package developers. Just like folks do with us. They trust our
build instructions to work.
I'm enjoying the discussion, hopefully others will comment and
we can get even more diverse opinions.
More information about the blfs-dev