[blfs-dev] The future of BLFS
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 18:36:51 PDT 2012
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.
> 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.
> 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.
As you probably know, I'm not a Gnome user. I used to use KDE, but now
I use Xfce as it does everything I want. I do use KDE applications,
especially konsole, but the window manager for 4.x was just too much
bloat for me.
Please feel free to update Gnome in a way that you think best, but be
careful not to remove packages that may be needed in other places. I do
think that a separate page with pointers to sources, but without build
instructions, would be reasonable for many rarely used packages.
> 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.
A reduction is reasonable, but we don't want to actually minimize. We
need to try to maintain a balanced approach.
> 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).
> 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
Probably a freeze in a week with a LFS-7.2-rc1 shortly after that.
More information about the blfs-dev