On 02/21/2014 10:12 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >>> Em 20-02-2014 23:00, LFS Trac escreveu: >>>> #3505: linux-3.13.4 >>>> ----------------------+------------------------ >>>> Reporter: bdubbs@… | Owner: lfs-book@… >>>> Type: task | Status: new >>>> Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.5 >>>> Component: Book | Version: SVN >>>> Severity: normal | Keywords: >>>> ----------------------+------------------------ >>>> New point version. >>>> >>>> We can do this for 7.5. The rule here is that we can update point >>>> versions but not major or minor versions. >>> >>> Couldn't it be the same for blfs, for almost all packages? >> >> That's worthy of discussion. Perhaps end packages and not libraries >> would be amenable to this type of rule. I'm hesitant to update >> libraries right now because of possible breakages of programs already >> marked as lfs75_checked. For the few packages that are marked >> lfs75_built, then there is no good reason not to update. >> >> Is that a reasonable compromise? >> >> -- Bruce > > I'm somewhat reluctant to update even end packages, unless there is > a wrthwhile fix (either a vulnerability fix, or a documented fix for > a problem). For libraries and toolkits, particularly once they have > been tagged, my general opinion is that they should wait until after > the release - again, unless there is a major fix [ and if there is, > all tags are off ]. On that basis, no to updating x264 (#4732). > > ĸen >
My opinion (given that it matters here) is more or less the same. See lfs-dev response. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
