Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 11/03/05 12:32 CST: > Hence, the difference between LFS and BLFS repos. Furthermore, to > sync them would be difficult (well, not really difficult, but time > consuming).
Thinking about this, I believe the main reason the BLFS repo was created is because it was deemed that the BLFS editors needed a way to timely update patches. There was a time when it would be weeks or more before patches would be updated to the LFS repo. However, this is not the case any longer. Jim and Tush are back, Archaic now helps out and additionally, the BLFS editors have commit privy to the LFS patches repo. For the above reasons, we could probably dump the BLFS repo and revert back to using the LFS repo. Only issue with this is, the BLFS patches are currently all in one central location, with a URL that points (via an entity) to the location. Using the LFS method, where all the patches are in separate directories, according to the package name, we would have to update every patch URL in the BLFS book. However, creating a directory for BLFS SVN patches and adding symlinks to the patches in this directory, would mean that we would only have to update the patches location entity in the book. I would volunteer to create the symlinks in a central BLFS SVN dir if it is decided we should go that route. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 12:39:00 up 39 days, 22:03, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.23 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
