proposal: new approach

Guy Dalziel krendoshazin at dementedfury.org
Sat Jul 25 03:37:43 PDT 2009


On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:44:29PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Tobias has sent a personal apology via email to me. His apology is
> accepted. He made good points in his post. In fact, the BDB rejection
> may have been a bit steep by Guy. But let's get past all that.

I don't consider it that steep, a little bit of testing never hurt
anyone. The most basic test we do is to make sure that things compile
together, and we tend to leave things to people who actually use them,
that way they'll be compiling them anyway. If we had more community
input then we could have people report to us what works or not, e.g., "I
use an LFS 6.5 system and Sendmail <whatever version> compiled and works 
fine against Berkeley DB 4.7.25", or, "I use PHP <whatever version> and 
this compiled and worked fine against Berkeley DB 4.7.25." Nobody said
it all has to be on the head of one editor, and it's a good way to
involve the community. Tobias has already got this model started by
saying, "I've used OpenLDAP 2.4.16 for 4 weeks with Berkeley DB 4.7.25
and I've had no problems". Now perhaps this model isn't suitable right
_now_ as we're quite far behind, but I certainly think it's worth
considering. 

> BLFS is indeed way behind. I suggest we just update to the newest
> releases of packages and see what breaks. I can't promise I can help
> build many packages, but I will review commits.

I've already suggested this with libjpeg-7. There's no way I can test
all of the packages that depend upon it by myself, but I have done some
testing which makes me confident enough to "throw it out there".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/attachments/20090725/f95f7531/attachment.sig>


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list