[blfs-dev] Upcoming BLFS-7.5 release
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Mon Mar 3 09:59:33 PST 2014
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 02-03-2014 21:42, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:16:44PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> We just released LFS-7.5 and we need to look at releasing BLFS-7.5 in
>>> the next few days. AFAIK, all the 7.5 tickets are complete and all the
>>> packages tagged for 7.5. It is just a matter of doing the release, but
>>> I'm sure that there are some tweaks that are necessary.
>>> For planning purposes, I think we can target Wednesday. March 5.
>> The --libexecdir switches still look a bit iffy to me.
>> 1. The following use --libexecdir with what I think are adequate
>> explanations of why: vte2, acl, dhcpcd. Anyone who disagrees :
>> please speak up!
>> 2. The following explain an optional --libexecdir switch: gnupg2,
>> emacs, librep, geoclue. I don't have a problem with leaving this
>> sort of thing in for a transitional period while people may still be
>> using older versions of LFS (does 3 years sound about right?), BUT
>> (i.) the markup is '<parameter>', I think it hould be '<option>' ?
>> (ii.) should we also do this for all other existing BLFS packages
>> which now use /usr/libexec ?
>> 3. Subversion used to run a subshell to interrogate apxs. The
>> current page looks unusual, but I haven't any desire to build it for
>> 7.5 (I only rebuilt my server in September), so I have to assume it
>> is ok ?
> More or less. I am comparing the two versions in BLFS svn and 7.4 (It is
> very good to having releases, so to easily comparing instructions
> versions. In "Command Explanations", of svn (7.5-rc1) I think we should
> write the complete switch, or it is almost useless:
> s|=...|=$(/usr/bin/apxs -q libexecdir)|
> In configure, I don't know how to handle the switch alone
>> 4. The following are still doing things the old way:
>> menu-cache, qemu, openbox, mc, pulseaudio. Is there any reason why
>> these should NOT drop --libexecdir ?
> menu-cache and openbox are my faults. I can fix them.
And I'll fix qemu. That one is my omission.
> The difference between my opinions and nothing are as small as the
> majority here wants. But I did not pay attention to this libexec drop
> subject at the beginning and it bothered a lot, during tags. So, I would
> like to propose that these kind of things should never be left for the
> tfreeze/tag stage, but be done before or after, in the future. Just
> tagging is hard enough a work.
More information about the blfs-dev