proposal: new approach

Randy McMurchy randy at
Fri Jul 24 16:33:40 PDT 2009

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/09 18:03 CST:

> I think we do need to mark each package with some sort of indication about when 
> it was last reviewed.  We do have a Last updated on: tag, but that's not always 
> the best indication because it is automatically updated for things like 
> whitespace changes.
> The exact method of doing this mark is not really important.  I like the 
> suggestion made earlier to add a line to each package with "Last checked against 
> LFS 6.5", possibly within the introduction of the package

I don't believe that adds any value. Our target is LFS-6.5. If a package
was updated (that's what a changelog is for), then it is obvious what
version it was checked against.

Furthermore, how are we to distinguish which packages were checked
against 6.3 and which were checked against 6.4? Answer: impossible
to tell unless someone builds it and then it is 6.5. So, in essence,
everything will be checked against 6.5, or it wasn't checked. So what
is the point in adding the obvious? It was either checked against 6.5
(changelog points this out) or it wasn't checked at all.

I'm against this idea. I don't want to release a stable book that
says "this package last checked against (some previous version other
than the stable LFS we targeted). I think it would look amateurish.

I think we're better off just continuing to update as we always have.
If we find breakage we fix it. I'm against "versioning" the updates.


rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux i686]
18:26:00 up 18 days, 6:54, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list