proposal: new approach

Randy McMurchy randy at
Sat Jul 25 07:03:13 PDT 2009

DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/25/09 08:48 CST:

> We absolutely need a way to track the pages that have been touched by a
> quick glance approach.

I disagree. I will go through every package and either update Trac or
add packages to it as I discover they are out of date. We'll use the Trac
system. If there is a ticket, the package needs updating. If there's no
ticket, the package doesn't need to be touched. Why does the book need to
be touched for this?

I don't think we need to go through updating packages such as TCPWrappers
(I used that as an example of a package that has not had an update in quite
a long time) and add that "it works with LFS 6.5". We'll know soon enough
if it doesn't.

> Finally, in light of the amount of work needed to be done, current LFS
> editors should be given access to BLFS (if they don't have it already). 
> Anything that anyone can contribute, after LFS-6.5 is out the door, will
> be greatly appreciated.

You're only talking about Matt, and he's had BLFS access for years.

> Any objections to any of the above?

Yes, I don't want to update pages in the book saying "it works with
such and such". Let's just use Trac. I will ensure each package is
accounted for.


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]
08:56:00 up 18 days, 21:24, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.10, 0.04

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list