akhiezer wrote: > Just for the avoidance of doubt: I think (fwiw) that a rolling-'release' is > overall not a good(-enough) idea per se, whether based on upstream 'stable' or > upstream 'unstable';
Perhaps, but I think it is as good as possible with the available manpower. > And _everyone_ essentially has to do this, entailing a fairly massive and > unnecessary reproduction of work across users of BLFS. Sure, there can be > side-benefits such as folks getting more familiar with the 'realities' of the > lower-levels and inner-workings of the dev/commit process &c. But is that > level > of involvement a _requirement_ for using BLFS: or should the person be able to > go and get a proper formal release and be able to work principally from that > and not have to follow trac/dev-lists/&c as much as with the rolling-'release' > scenario. > > > IOW, by shifting to rolling-'release', I'd argue that BLFS has overall > increased the barriers to entry, for folks; and _as such_ is overall now less > educational. It's interesting that I recently did a BLFS build for myself without considering if the packages were the latest or not -- just what was in the book. It helped that I already had scripts for about every package, but a lot had to be updated in generally small ways to get to the BLFS package version. I generally had to comment out the tests because I didn't want to take the time and I figured the editor that last updated the book had done that for me. The packages selected were those that I wanted to use. I didn't build everything, but I did build xfce and kde. The order of packages was as the dependencies dictated. I was actually suprised in how easily things went together. There were very few problems. Getting from LFS -> Xorg -> WM is a pretty long process, but BLFS seemed to work as intended. Right now I'm up to a little over 300 BLFS packages. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
