On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 09:20:13AM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote: > I'm going to assume libpciaccess-0.12.0 is correct, and see what I can > find about its callers, if anything. > > I suppose the question must be asked, am I trying to install a > version of X that's "difficult" or "the sweet spot". Knowing I'd be > following developments I did browse the blfs-dev mailing list of a > few years ago, settling on 7.5-3 as a likely candidate. What I need > is support for newer versions of Firefox-[357], and drivers that > work, intel, nv, ati, etc. > > Should I be trying for a different version of X with this LFS-6.6?
From memory, all recent versions of xorg have worked well : when run on a fresh LFS. I don't recall any reasons why I needed to update individual xorg packages (I'm sure there must have been a few in this timeframe) and I've not attempted to update xorg as a whole. At one time I was trying to keep an LFS-6.6 system going "long term", fixing known vulnerabilities, but I gave up : (i.) the LFS build was a bit too old to _properly_ support ext4, (ii.) much of the desktop would need to be rebuilt - in particular the gnomic packages I had been using were in old versions, (iii.) that machine is a single processor x86_64 with not much memory - builds of modern software, particularly C++, take forever on it. So, my general advice for a desktop is : expect to have to build a new system from time to time - if you care about potential vulnerabilities, that time will often be not of your choosing :) If you have sufficient RAM and CPU power, building a new system from scripts (ideally once or twice a year) will keep you up to date with the major changes on the desktop. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
