Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Libpng 1.5.10 - March 29, 2012 (apparently, this is the release date).
LOL. I meant the XSane version. > I do not yet feel confident enough to replace my host by LFS. Did it in > another machime (LFS6.7), but it was a PITA, regarding NVidea, Broadcom and > VMware, worse yet when upgrading the kernel, NV and VM had to be taken into > account and reconfigured (this is not the best word, hope you understand) of > course more a problem of these than LFS/BLFS. But I will try to learn jhalfs > (remember?) in some days maybe weeks, make a partition in the host for LFS > and then I will be able to help more. The nice thing about LFS is that you don't have to upgrade. I still use my system built in 2005 every day. I did upgrade the kernel, but it is still 2.6.22.5. There is no need to update just because a new version of something is released. I think you need some kind of missing capability or indicated error before updating. BTW, the LFS main server is still running Linux 2.6.18 without issues. When we update the server HW, we will do a complete refresh of the sw. > My intention and goal is to eventually leave other distribuitions just to > follow and see what is happening, and rely entirelly in LFS/BLFS even as > host. > > So, please, do not give up. People like me would have much more difficulty to > achieve such a goal (see above) if packages so important as xsane/sane keep > being dropped from the book. I looked at http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html. There's a lot of support for old hw, but I'm not sure about newer hw. There's a couple of problems with keeping packages in the book. First is hw compatibility. If we don't have the hw to test, then how can we reasonably keep it in the book? Your problem, for instance, is complicated by the fact you are using virtual hosts. Accessing hw in virtual hosts really is going beyond the scope of BLFS. The second problem is with limited use and old software. If a package is no longer being updated and it doesn't build with newer libraries, how can we reasonably keep it in the book? Another example. We have three mail servers in the book: sendmail, postfix, and exim. How many people really need any mail server? My system has: $ cat /usr/bin/sendmail #!/bin/bash # sendmail dummy echo $@ Gereral desktop users really only need email clients like Thunderbird or mutt. Sometimes you need a way to send mail out only via a script but that is generally a limited situation, but a full blown mail server requires a publicly available IP address and few people have that. Given that, why maintain three different servers? We really don't have a decent way to fully test mail servers. Right now Leafnode (NNTP) needs an update. I don't know how to test that or even if anyone uses NNTP any more. Everyone doing updates to BLFS in the last 6 months has been doing a great job, but as we get to the last few apps that have not been updated, these problems start to come up and the only viable option I see is to drop them rather than leave in obsolete instructions. I am, of course, open to other ideas, but I just don't know how to handle these problems right now. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
