On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 20:53 -0600, Archaic wrote: > I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly, but have a few questions:
My apologies for not answering them sooner. > 1) What base system is being targetted? > a) If 6.1.1, then what about the gcc4-specific stuff? > b) If 6.1.1, how much testing has gone on with that base version? I would say it would be for 6.1.1 and beyond, though I don't really know how we can classify anything. 6.1.1 may have issues, but nobody would know. I have been building LFS SVN for so long now, as it has been so stable in the last few months, I wouldn't ever dream of building on 6.1.1. And as soon as the udev/alpha thing goes in, no telling where the BLFS book would stand with that, so a release may not be feasible. And that really sucks because the book in the last few months has probably been better than it ever has. Very few packages are/have been more than one rev behind, and major programs have been *very* current. There have been 5 releases of BLFS. They have been spaced out at 6.5, 7, 10 and 4 intervals. It has now been 8 months since the last BLFS release (a million years in open source time) with no release in sight for many months. This would put it at a longer interval of release than ever before. And the book has been kept up perhaps better than ever before. It just doesn't make sense. Yes, Gcc-4 threw a big curve-ball at us, that we didn't have a good work-around for. I blame it on LFS. :-) Though I'm joking, there is some truthness to this. It is my opinion that LFS should have released before this new merge is taking place. It was a *very, very* stable platform. Perhaps the best LFS platform I have used. After this merge, it will be quite some time before BLFS testing has been as thorough as the testing the pre-merge has received. Please don't take this as a gig at the LFS team. They do a helluva good job for the manpower they have. I just feel that releases are too infrequent. Is it hard to release? I wouldn't think so. Why can't we release more often? Stability hasn't been an issue. Sorry for rambling. > 2) How many packages have not been updated in a while, perhaps even > since 6.1? I would say not too many, that actually have updates available. > 3) How much time do you see for testing? OOo and Xorg seem to be > slightly problematic still guaging blfs-support threads (haven't > tried myself yet). Ooo probably will *always* be problematic. Anything that takes 6 gigs of diskspace and as many hours, *or days* (depending on the speed of the machine), is going to be problematic. > 4) What will be the book's version? I would say 6.1a, so as not to be confused with LFS-6.1.1. Again in the middle of releases, it is hard to say what the target is. -- Randy rmlinux: [bogomips 3993.32] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.2] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 13:02:25 up 17 days, 19:37, 4 users, load average: 0.35, 0.19, 0.11 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
