Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/09 18:03 CST: > I think we do need to mark each package with some sort of indication about > when > it was last reviewed. We do have a Last updated on: tag, but that's not > always > the best indication because it is automatically updated for things like > whitespace changes. > > The exact method of doing this mark is not really important. I like the > suggestion made earlier to add a line to each package with "Last checked > against > LFS 6.5", possibly within the introduction of the package
I don't believe that adds any value. Our target is LFS-6.5. If a package was updated (that's what a changelog is for), then it is obvious what version it was checked against. Furthermore, how are we to distinguish which packages were checked against 6.3 and which were checked against 6.4? Answer: impossible to tell unless someone builds it and then it is 6.5. So, in essence, everything will be checked against 6.5, or it wasn't checked. So what is the point in adding the obvious? It was either checked against 6.5 (changelog points this out) or it wasn't checked at all. I'm against this idea. I don't want to release a stable book that says "this package last checked against (some previous version other than the stable LFS we targeted). I think it would look amateurish. I think we're better off just continuing to update as we always have. If we find breakage we fix it. I'm against "versioning" the updates. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 18:26:00 up 18 days, 6:54, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
