[blfs-dev] The future of BLFS

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Sun Aug 12 17:46:31 PDT 2012


On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:05:44PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
> Hello BLFS team.
> 
> With GNOME 3.6 release candidate few days away, I decided to review 
> stable GNOME packages in the book and update them to final versions 
> available up to today so I can focus on the upcoming release.
> 
> With that, I'd like to say that I am going to upgrade GNOME in the book 
> to the next version. If someone else wants to do the work, you welcome.

 I think you mean *not* going to upgrade ?
> 
> But looking at 3.x releases, every release adds some new (useless for 
> most users, especialy LFS/BLFS ones). Just take a look at Rygel, Boxes, 
> Baobab and such ... Also, I hate that they decided to make developer 
> tools part of the release (in apps category). I've personaly never used 
> them, I just built them in order to add them in BLFS.
> 
> With the next release I'd like to remove some of those packages, 
> including all developer-related ones and previously mentioned ones, 
> which will triger removal of virt stuff, gupnp, most of packagemm 
> packages and Tracker. I could also remove some packages that have no 
> real use, but they are in the book because some one said that we want 
> full GNOME as defined by upstream. Those count libchamplain, libgxps, 
> cantarell-fonts, seed and maybe few others.
> 

 LOL.  I'll try not to remind you that I originally put cantarell
fonts in with the other TTF fonts - for those who need a tiny font,
it isn't bad :)  For the rest of it - yes, I agree we have too many
minimally-useful gnome packages.  Unfortunately, the history was
that people believed that putting all of gnome into the book would
be a good thing.  That view seems to have started in the mid gnome-2
period.  From my POV, gnome-3 is very different and appears to be
aiming to become no more useful than MS windows-8 will be.

 Thanks for your prodigious amount of work on these packages.

> With minimisation of GNOME, I could focus more on other areas of BLFS. I 
> am not interested in any tex stuff, server software or some console 
> tools, but I can help anywhere else.
> 
> With Andy gone, we are lacking staff to maintain such large amount of 
> packages. With Bruce maintaining both LFS and BLFS, and most of us not 
> having enough time because of holidays or work or such, we can profit 
> with the BOOK minimisation.
> 

 Actually, I'm not totally keen on minimalisation - if a package is
being maintained by an editor, or continues to build and work
without problems, then I don't see any urgent need to drop it.  The
growing number of packages in gnome (where all of them need to be
updated) is, of course, different from the general case.
> I guess we can do better with external references for mentioned GNOME 
> packages (as is done in KDE section), plus I could add some kind of 
> order for GNOME packages (this one is terrible).

 If you can get a reliable build order, that would be great.  If
not, you are no worse than the other people who have tried :)

 I suppose that Wayne or DJ might feel differently, but I have no
arguments.  Again, thanks for what you have done.
> 
> I would also like to use this thread to ask LFS devs if there are any 
> plans for LFS freeze so I can build -dev platform and use it to build 
> GNOME plus fix other packages that are possibly broken with glibc-2.16 
> upgrade.
> 
 I think what's currently there is pretty close.  I haven't built
since Matt started looking at glibc-2.16, but I hope to get my
scripts up to date in a day or three.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list