On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:05:44PM +0200, Armin K. wrote: > Hello BLFS team. > > With GNOME 3.6 release candidate few days away, I decided to review > stable GNOME packages in the book and update them to final versions > available up to today so I can focus on the upcoming release. > > With that, I'd like to say that I am going to upgrade GNOME in the book > to the next version. If someone else wants to do the work, you welcome.
I think you mean *not* going to upgrade ? > > But looking at 3.x releases, every release adds some new (useless for > most users, especialy LFS/BLFS ones). Just take a look at Rygel, Boxes, > Baobab and such ... Also, I hate that they decided to make developer > tools part of the release (in apps category). I've personaly never used > them, I just built them in order to add them in BLFS. > > With the next release I'd like to remove some of those packages, > including all developer-related ones and previously mentioned ones, > which will triger removal of virt stuff, gupnp, most of packagemm > packages and Tracker. I could also remove some packages that have no > real use, but they are in the book because some one said that we want > full GNOME as defined by upstream. Those count libchamplain, libgxps, > cantarell-fonts, seed and maybe few others. > LOL. I'll try not to remind you that I originally put cantarell fonts in with the other TTF fonts - for those who need a tiny font, it isn't bad :) For the rest of it - yes, I agree we have too many minimally-useful gnome packages. Unfortunately, the history was that people believed that putting all of gnome into the book would be a good thing. That view seems to have started in the mid gnome-2 period. From my POV, gnome-3 is very different and appears to be aiming to become no more useful than MS windows-8 will be. Thanks for your prodigious amount of work on these packages. > With minimisation of GNOME, I could focus more on other areas of BLFS. I > am not interested in any tex stuff, server software or some console > tools, but I can help anywhere else. > > With Andy gone, we are lacking staff to maintain such large amount of > packages. With Bruce maintaining both LFS and BLFS, and most of us not > having enough time because of holidays or work or such, we can profit > with the BOOK minimisation. > Actually, I'm not totally keen on minimalisation - if a package is being maintained by an editor, or continues to build and work without problems, then I don't see any urgent need to drop it. The growing number of packages in gnome (where all of them need to be updated) is, of course, different from the general case. > I guess we can do better with external references for mentioned GNOME > packages (as is done in KDE section), plus I could add some kind of > order for GNOME packages (this one is terrible). If you can get a reliable build order, that would be great. If not, you are no worse than the other people who have tried :) I suppose that Wayne or DJ might feel differently, but I have no arguments. Again, thanks for what you have done. > > I would also like to use this thread to ask LFS devs if there are any > plans for LFS freeze so I can build -dev platform and use it to build > GNOME plus fix other packages that are possibly broken with glibc-2.16 > upgrade. > I think what's currently there is pretty close. I haven't built since Matt started looking at glibc-2.16, but I hope to get my scripts up to date in a day or three. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
