proposal: new approach

Tobias Gasser lfs at
Fri Jul 24 17:34:14 PDT 2009

Bruce Dubbs schrieb:
> I understand your point, but I was thinking of the future.  It's true that any 
> package we update now should be against 6.5.  The absence of a line that says 
> "Last Reviewed means that it was before 6.5.
> In the future, if we get behind again, then the Last Checked line does provide 
> some useful information.
> For the present, it gives a quick check (without searching through 200+ tickets) 
> that a package was reviewed recently and doesn't need further review right now.

looking at the php package i'd like some more details not only about
which lfs was used for a sucessfull compile, but in addition what
version of dependencies.

as i mentionned in an earlier thread (RFC: BLFS-6.4, 09/07/20),
something like "last checked with lfs x.y, using libxslt-a.b,
pcre-c.d...", including needed additional ./configure options.

as soon as my current lfs-build is finished, i'll go on to build a new
server with apache, mysql, php, samba, cups. when/if sucessfull, i'll
post an example for php here.

i know this can fill up the pages, as there will be quite a number of
possible combinations... as i wrote, the wiki might be the right place
for such additional information.

as far as i understand, a blfs-book should match a lfs-book. the "last
checked" makes sense in the dev/svn, but not in a final book. same for
the additional dependencies as they should be consistent within a final
book (i guess).


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list