Matching BLFS with LFS (was: How can I contribute?)
zarniwhoop73 at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 1 10:30:16 PDT 2010
On 1 August 2010 17:43, Vinay Pawar <vinay.pawar at yahoo.com> wrote:
> One refreshingly good thing that happened in the last few releases is that LFS stable is comfortably close to upstream 'stable' releases.
I suspect you mean different things by 'upstream' and 'stable' from
what the rest of us do.
Each package has its own upstream, and LFS has alway used many fewer
patches than the
main distros. I'm not intending to argue, I just find your mails hard to parse.
> Unfortunately, BLFS-stable is prehistoric in comparison.
Well known, and the Note: at the top of
> This is a very tricky situation to be in. One way to mend this could be take any BLFS snapshot between May-July 2010 be mark it stable. Point BLFS-dev to LFS-dev. And hope that all the hundreds of updated BLFS packages, both in and out of the book would confirm to gcc-4.5, either upstream or as patches.
Again, we don't specifically produce snapshots. I suppose there is
with projects like ffmpeg where every commit causes a snapshot tarball to be
Except for occasional fubars in commits, the latest version is the one to use.
Within the book, *many* packages have not been updated for a long time,
and for some of these probably nobody cares.
Always, if you have a problem building against recent LFS, whether the
package is in the BLFS book or not, feel free to ask on blfs-support.
In many cases, toolchain fixes can often be found in the big distros,
and sometimes in gentoo.
After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!"
More information about the blfs-dev