Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/12/06 20:00 CST: >> Looking at the outstanding tickets, xchat is one of the oldest. It >> seems to be a relatively simple CMMI application, > > Though I meant to, it didn't happen, but I wanted to comment that > perhaps this is the oldest bug in the list because every time an > Editor looked at it, and knew it was nothing but CMMI, and there > was no BLFS dependency for it, it was just a waste of time. :-)
I opened the ticket at the direct request of Jim. The only other chat clients in the book are embedded in KDE and Seamonkey. I thought at least one standalone client was reasonable. It belongs in the book as much as gaim. > I could make 100 legitimate bugs right now, for good packages that > have have BLFS dependencies (perhaps indirectly) and install via CMMI, > or perhaps a variance here and there with the config or docs, but do > we want that in the BLFS book? Some, yes. That's why I added JACK, OpenEXR, and JasPer. Others are not unreasonable. > I'm all for including as much as possible, but for CMMI with no > BLFS dependencies, wouldn't a page listing these types of packages > in each section, or the wiki, be a better value for us. Though I must > say, there has been more Editor activity in updating packages in the > recent past than probably ever before. Perhaps this trend can > continue, and more packages can be handled timely. A separate "other" page taht points to the wiki is a possibility. Perhaps we should do that. My goal right now is to try to get as many tickets as possible resolved before LFS goes to -testing. That will make testing of BLFS a lot easier if we are not concentrating on updates. Right now we are at 50 open tickets with most assigned and accepted. The progress has been good. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
