[blfs-dev] Trying to facilitate a 7.4 BLFS release, was Re: transmission and qt

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 15:44:08 PDT 2013


Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> Can I suggest that we consider a freeze for the 7.4 BLFS book (at
>>> some point) even with tickets outstanding ?
>>
>> We can do that, but I'd want to minimize the freeze time due to the
>> upstream churn rate.
>>
>
>   At the moment, we are down to four packages tagged for 7.3 :
> ./gnome/applications/seahorse.xml:    &lfs73_checked;
> ./gnome/applications/totem.xml:    &lfs73_checked;
> ./xsoft/office/gnumeric.xml:    &lfs73_checked;
> ./xsoft/other/transmission.xml:    &lfs73_checked;
>
>   Of those, I could take a look at gnumeric (you've got the ticket) ?

I don't mind if you take it.

>   Seahorse and totem are beyond me : I never managed to get gnome's
> keyring working properly in recent times on systems without gdm, and
> totem's many deps include libpeas which _requires_ introspection.

Actually, I haven't used them before.  I do have the dependencies done 
though.

>   At the moment, I'm still trying to rip a classical CD in cdparanoia
> on one of my machines (been running for about 66 hours so far,
> reporting a lot of non-recoverable errors, but its been _nearly_
> done for all of today).  Can't do much else until that completes.

Bad CD?  I tend to use K3b and it generally only takes a couple of minutes.

>   But if there is a release in sight, I suppose that I could attempt
> to work out a minimal build order for totem on my LFS-7.4-rc1 32-bit
> box.  Provided nothing *requires* pulse.  That build might include
> seahorse, but if so I would have to label that as "built but not
> tested".  Would that be helpful ?  It will probably take me some
> hours of work to set up the scripts.

Built but not tested is OK.

>   I'm also going to suggest that you cut a 7.4-rc branch as soon as
> everything has been tagged, then throw the release out to anybody
> who cares but doesn't follow -dev, AND meanwhile we can continue
> updating outstanding tickets in -svn once the branch exists, without
> any intention of feeding those changes back into the branch (it's
> just a snapshot of where we were).

I want to wait for KDE.  I'm also working on Qt-5.1.1 right now.  I have 
noticed some issues with the Qt5 page that I'll fix at the same time.

>   I've also using mdadm-3.3 on my server (without the static libs, so
> just 'make' is good enough for my use case) but you've got the ticket
> for that.

Again, if you have it basically done, take the ticket.

I don't see any obvious reason why 3.3 needs to go into
> the 7.4 book, so just mentioning that I can do it for -svn in the
> future if you wish.

There are a couple of package types.  End user packages, e.g. postfix, 
goffice, are fairly painless to update because nothing depends on them. 
  Others, like D-Bus, have a lot of packages that depend on them.

   -- Bruce






More information about the blfs-dev mailing list