[blfs-dev] systemd and GNOME was: Re: Planning ahead
wblaszcz at bigpond.net.au
Sat Aug 3 21:32:45 PDT 2013
On 04/08/13 13:46, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
>> On 04/08/13 13:15, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/13 09:07, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>>> We have reached a milestone. The SVN versions of both LFS and BLFS are
>>>>> now up to date. There are no major outstanding issues that need to be
>>>>> There are a couple of minor changes that I have to LFS, but those will
>>>>> be committed soon, but are not critical. KDE is slightly out of date,
>>>>> but a new version is due anyway in the next two weeks.
>>>>> Of course, upstream will continue to release additional updates and we
>>>>> need to stay on top of that, but keeping up is a lot less problem than
>>>>> getting caught up from being behind on literally hundreds of packages.
>>>>> With that in mind, I would like to freeze LFS (mostly) on August 15 and
>>>>> release LFS-7.4-rc1. The target date for LFS-7.4 will be 1 September.
>>>>> During the freeze period, some packages may be updated, but not gcc,
>>>>> binutils, or glibc. Any update in the freeze period will be considered
>>>>> by the impact to the rest of the books - both LFS and BLFS.
>>>>> In that two week period, beyond normal fixes, I propose to start
>>>>> rebuilding BLFS and marking packages for lfs74. Shortly after the LFS
>>>>> release, I'd like to produce a 'stable' BLFS-7.4 with all packages in
>>>>> BLFS tested against the new LFS. Then sometime in September we can
>>>>> release BLFS-7.4.
>>>> I'm curious about what are the plans for GNOME in a stable BLFS.
>>>> Is it going to be completely removed since it incomplete? or will there
>>>> be some kind of note stating that it is incomplete?
>>> GNOME 2 is obsolete and unsupported with newer suport libraries like
>>> glib. GNOME 3 appears to depend on systemd, so if there is enough
>>> interest in supporting the systemd branh, then gnome will be suppored
>> So is the GNOME chapter going to be removed from the main branch?
> There are some applications that can be built. Those remain. The
> support packages in Chapter 30 are there to support the packages in
> Chapter 31.
> -- Bruce
If that is the case then it should be mentioned somewhere that this is
not the full GNOME suite, Otherwise people will be confused. I'm
referring to Esben's post on the 22nd.
One another note, I think there would be more incentive (to maintaining
this) if the systemd branch was actually made public, i.e. a link from
the main BLFS page. No one wants to maintain something that is not going
to be seen by anyone else.
On the other hand. Would not merging be a nightmare to maintain between
the two branches?
I think it would have of been a lot easier if the GNOME packages
remained in the main book, and just to have a note on each package that
required systemd, either by referring to LFS-systemd link, or just an
external systemd link.
More information about the blfs-dev