Ken Moffat wrote: Thanks very much for the reply.
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:20:30PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: [...] >> So, I'm asking the development team which version is considered >> the best to use at the moment. Is 6.3 now considered "retired"? >> Is 6.4 considered sufficiently "stable"? I see that there is >> a 6.4 stable, and a 6.4 development. [...] > I've got one machine where I sometimes still run BLFS-6.3 : the > desktop packages are old, but apart from upgrading the gimp (for > functionality) and firefox (that's a box where I'm now using the > ubuntu version of firefox2 - see my BLFS-support post from last > week) it works (and is currently using 2.6.28 and later kernels). > > Unfortunately, BLFS still has a way to go before all the versions > are upgraded for 6.4. OTOH, if you describe FC2 as "working" you > probably aren't keen on using the "latest and greatest" versions ;-) Yes, one of the really off-putting things about FC is the churn. It wasn't the best distro for me, but I got a contract to do a Linux port of some SCO and some Windows stuff, and they wanted me to use FC, so... I got to experience the joy of the FC2 defect which wiped out the partition table. I needed this machine to dual boot Windows XP and FC2 to ensure I didn't break anything in the WXP version during the port. So, I got to learn about some dual boot issues with Compaq computers (they go into "recovery" mode if the MBR isn't as shipped, so I use the Windows Boot Manager in XP to boot GRUB off of another partition) and also about XP recovery along the way :-) > I expect everyone will discover things they don't like in their > first LFS/BLFS build, and therefore that system will have a > comparatively short life. I don't recommend that people use scripts > the first time they build LFS, but it's probably a good idea to I did the 6.3 (up to the point of making bootable) without the aid of any scripts. It took a few days. :-) I had to restart once, and clobbered my running system. Wiped out /dev when I rm'd the chrooted environment while it was still bound to the "real" /dev. I realized that I had still got the bound mount just a moment after pressing the return key :-( Recovered by booting Knoppix LiveCD, copying /dev to my hard drive, rebooting, and being up enough to find out how to rebuild /dev without reinstalling. Learned a lot more about Linux recovery than I ever wanted to know :-) > script the BLFS packages. Once you have the scripts, updating them > for a new build is comparatively simple (a few things move around, a > few get added, sometimes something can drop out). Are you saying that the BLFS for 6.3 will run fine with 6.4? I'd think so. Also, as you note, I really don't care about the L&G GUI stuff. I do my maintenance using a CLI, anyway. I might want a later GIMP and maybe EOG (mine can't print). > Therefore, I suggest you boot the LFS-6.3 system, upgrade the kernel > (2.6.27 will have longer-term support from upstream), and use it to > test out the packages you intend to use on it. When you decide it > has served its purpose, build a newer system. Using 6.4 and BLFS from 6.3? Or are you suggesting to wait for the 6.4 release of BLFS? > ĸen ^^^^^^ What is this stuff I see in some posts? Mike -- p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN. This message made from 100% recycled bits. You have found the bank of Larn. I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page