Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Friday 02 February 2007 14:33, TheOldFellow wrote: > >> The third problem is that LFS is almost dead (although BLFS is still >> alive and kicking - It's great to see how much effort you guys are >> putting in, and it's appreciated, I assure you.) and despite Gerard >> having finally built the replacement server, he isn't contributing, and >> there doesn't appear to be much going on. > > Not much going on? 16 bugs were fixed in the space of 30 minutes on > Wednesday! I do, of course, understand what you mean though. I don't think > there are any major features being cried out for at present, hence things > seem to be ticking along just upgrading packages as and when upstream release > them.
Only slight criticism intended, and not aimed at those still active at all! I really enjoyed those days when the 'Pure LFS' was being developed - the cut and thrust :-) of technical debate etc.. Now it is just a matter of moving the versions forward. For a laugh, I considered building LFS-2.4, just for old times sake, then I realised that the kernel doesn't have any of the drivers needed for my current hardware... As it happens, the upgrade of Oracle Berkeley Database to the latest version coincided with a need to build it for a new postfix, so thanks for that! R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
