How can I contribute?

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop73 at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 1 05:45:23 PDT 2010


On 1 August 2010 06:58, Vinay Pawar <vinay.pawar at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I'm using a LFS-6.6 with BLFS-svn-20100527 and intend on sticking to LFS-6.6 until there's a kernel and/or gcc requirement. Also, I need to upgrade BLFS to a June/July snapshot.
>
> I think if BLFS svn monthly snapshots are archived, it'll be easier for BLFS users to mark them stable for their purposes. I have a whole bunch of blfs snapshots and have kinda lost track of which is which. I don't remember ever using a BLFS stable. I agree that blfs-dev should target lfs-dev, but at the same time dramatic changes like gcc-4.5 could easily create a patch mess for those who can't switch to gcc-4.5 yet, but need blfs-dev for the most part. Also I think the note on the blfs download page about a release being delayed isn't true anymore. BLFS completely missed a release.
>
> --
> zoyd

Sorry, I don't understand this (apart from the last sentence).  AFAIK
there are *no* monthly snapshots of BLFS.  BLFS gets updated as and
when.

>From time to time, certain versions of packages don't play nicely
together - the last to affect
me was libxml2/abiword - fortunately, abiword has managed some
releases since then
(they'd been very slow).  This is just a fact of life.

I agree that gcc upgrades - sometimes even within the same release
series - can tighten
their rules about what they accept.  So far, I've never seen a case
where applying a patch
to fix this caused problems with the previous version of gcc.
Equally, if the patch is
described as "fixes problems with gcc-4.y" you can probably omit it if
you are using
gcc-4.x.

ĸen
-- 
After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!"



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list