BLFS-6.4RC1 or any

Randy McMurchy randy at
Tue Feb 16 15:38:38 PST 2010

Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/16/10 15:21 CST:
> But, if both Book maintainers say that there is no need for a BLFS release anymore, then at
> least we have to find a workable scheme, so we can give to the developers and users a clear
> target and don't leave them in the mist.

I'll try to address several of the items in this thread in this one
single reply.

First, to Ag, I didn't say we would never release again. It is just
getting Editor's to do the work, which we haven't had a lot of lately.
I really would like to get a version out that is compatible with LFS-6.5.
We may even be close. I can do the release management stuff, it is
simple and not time consuming. But we need to get the book in a state
where things are stable.

Right now, GNOME is almost there. X has some changes that need to be
done. I'm currently doing many packages. I can actually see a release

Next, about the idea of breaking the book up and letting the community
do the work. That is what the Wiki is for, so I am against breaking up
the book.

Next, about the moving target. As soon as we release, we have a stable
combination of LFS-6.5 and BLFS-6.5. It should be rock solid.

Next, someone is worrying about LFS releasing with GCC-4.4. So what?
Current development LFS is so bleeding edge, I'd bet there is no
distro as current as LFS development. People, you don't need to move
to the most current version of a package as soon as it is released.

I am building up a LFS-6.5, BLFS-6.5 (soon to be) combination for
production use. I will use that for a year or two as it is good
enough and will be very stable.

Please continue the discussion, as I want folks to be comfortable
that we are going to *try* to release a new BLFS, it just may not
happen due to lack of manpower. However, I really do see it happening.


rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux i686]
17:29:00 up 51 days, 22:37, 5 users, load average: 0.10, 0.11, 0.09

More information about the blfs-support mailing list