DJ Lucas wrote these words on 02/28/10 13:46 CST:
> Actually, that is not true.  We did not have a plan for a stable release
> AFAIK.  I've been building against 6.5+.

It had been mentioned a month(s) or more ago that this was the intent.
Things just got really slow while Wayne was updating GNOME. I know
Wayne was building against 6.5, I just did a recent build of 6.5 and
have several package updates waiting to go, but want to ensure
everything works together before I commit anything.

We are probably fine with your work using just above LFS-6.5, but you
never know. I snipped everything else from your post, DJ, but not
because I'm dismissing it. I'll try to summarize my thoughts.

I am not in favor of branching. It is more work. I would go as far as
saying "go ahead and update BLFS-dev using your current config, if
something is broken in a backwards manner using pure LFS-6.5 (unlikely?)
than we provide a fix.

Let's put a 6.5 release out. I will have KDE and GNOME built shortly,
I'm not as much an automated man as you with the building, because I
like to examine new twists that may be in each package. If we put out
a 6.5, so that LFS (general-as a whole -new user) will think there is
some continuity. It won't take that long. I've got a slew of packages
that can be updated, but as I said, I want to make sure it all works
before I commit.

If something we haven't updated, is broken in the 6.5 release, then
it will be something -support will handle. Remember, we've been placing
"known to build and work for LFS-6.5" messages on the package we know
works. Let's do it, and blow off the branch. We'll get a quick 6.5 out
and then let trunk do it's thing catching up with an LFS-6.6 build.

Wadayasay?

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
19:55:01 up 64 days, 1:03, 5 users, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to