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. > > 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. > > 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.
As you probably know, I'm not a Gnome user. I used to use KDE, but now I use Xfce as it does everything I want. I do use KDE applications, especially konsole, but the window manager for 4.x was just too much bloat for me. Please feel free to update Gnome in a way that you think best, but be careful not to remove packages that may be needed in other places. I do think that a separate page with pointers to sources, but without build instructions, would be reasonable for many rarely used packages. > 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. A reduction is reasonable, but we don't want to actually minimize. We need to try to maintain a balanced approach. > 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). > > 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. Probably a freeze in a week with a LFS-7.2-rc1 shortly after that. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
