Discussion about a new BLFS release

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Nov 4 16:23:04 PDT 2010

On 11/04/2010 11:00 AM, Robert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 09:57, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

Welcome back...officially!
>> Sections 26-28: KDE
>> Not even a clue what to do here. The book version is a more than two
>> year old desktop that I don't even know if anyone has been following for
>> security patches. Nobody likes CMake and KDE4.x (well, not really nobody,
>> but there has been no book development towards it), so what to do?
> You know, I said I was going to put Trinity stuff for KDE, and I still
> stand by it.
> However, since I have absolutely no clue how to work the XML files
> (and it'd make me lazy, lol), I'll throw everything into text files
> and attach it.
> For trinity, however, I'm going to require an old version of Autoconf, 2.63.
> I can also post build directions for that (in /opt) when I get to that.
> I need to find time >_< I'm up to my neck in work so much, it's not funny.

I'll follow and validate for you and keep my end of it then (testing,
xml, and commits). I had also planned on doing KDE-4 as well, but no way
to get it done and tested if we are gearing up for a release. A couple
of individuals have given me their build scripts as a starting point. I
haven't forgotten guys, I've just been busy. I want to get to the xorg
post-install bits next (just about everything there is stale now) and
then William's bit on the gnome network stuff. I'm hoping that it is a
no brainer for the BLFS part of that (merging the dhcp service scripts)
and hopefully, we'll have a new Xorg soon so we can drop quite a few
packages and the remaining configuration issues.

>> Sections 29-30: GNOME
>> We are fairly current, but if 6 months goes by without a BLFS release,
>> it would be considered an old desktop. We are at 2.30.2, 2.32 has
>> already been released and in 6 months 3.0 will have been released.
> Keep 3.0 seperate from 2.32 when you update them. 3.0 is radically different.

Yes, if it is terribly different we can do that, much like we've done
with Gnome1/Gnome2 and XFree86/Xorg/Xorg7 in the past...although, I
don't believe that they will need to be separated. Really not much will
change regarding Gnome as almost all of the legacy stuff has already
been updated to work with the new tree and kept in tact to keep 2.x
around. Gnome Shell is way different, but 95% of the instructions will
remain very similar AFAICT and the old desktop and panel will still be
available (and possibly developed further for those who want a
traditional Gnome). I for one can't wait for 3.0, modern, something to
really show off. :-)

Wayne, have you looked at 2.32 yet? If not, I'm good with staying on
2.30.2. We need to make a decision on how to handle the optional prefix
though. Should it go in the dumpster? I'll be happy to go over the
existing instructions and fix any side issues for the optional prefix,
but I'll need somebody to follow me to verify that my changes don't
break the normal /usr installation.  I'm only part way through 2.32, so
I can easily go back and start over (I kind of need to anyway after I
figured out that db won't really replace sqlite3 yet).

>> Sections 31-34:
>> These programs and applications are mostly current, some need to be
>> updated (GnuCash?), but overall we are not in bad shape. Ken has done
>> a lot of work here (thanks!)
> Should we consider LibreOffice?

Last time it came up (as Go-oo who has now rolled into the Libre
envelope -- something akin to the Mozilla Foundation), we had one
objection to Novell's input and mono (which can easily be disabled) and
nobody backing me for it at all. I went back to raw OOo and did a bunch
of builds to verify deps. I'd personally like to go the LibreOffice
route. There are tons of fixes and enhancements in there that are not
part of upstream OOo yet. Also, the build is much easier as we define
the build requirements ourselves (ie: nothing is optional). From a
maintenance standpoint, that is great! Build it once, not a dozen or
more times.

>> The rest of the book is fairly current with a few exceptions. I will
>> handle the update from TeTeX to TeX-Live (from source, not a binary
>> installation).

I'm sure there are some other minor things laying around, but they will
get picked up as we start to blast through it. I can't believe we are
actually discussing a release! That's just cool!

-- DJ Lucas

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list