Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Adding a section about the configurations (i.e.: > actually used dependencies and actually passed ./configure switches) > tested by BLFS editors and known bugs in them would help.
It should already be that Editors are using the book's instructions as a preliminary build, then adding other possible ./configure switches (within reason). Identifying bugs should also be done. If there is some bizarre combination the ends up with a weird or broken result, we can identify it if it is known. I think the situation with XFCE and HAL is the exception more than the rule. I'm still disappointed that XFCE was removed simply because you felt that *maybe* it will become unmaintained. > IMHO, it would be useful to mark unmaintained packages, too. Well, I think we already sort of do. But first you would have to define what an "unmaintained" package is. Is it, 1) any package that has a newer release available but has not yet been updated in BLFS, or 2) any package that is x release versions behind, or 3) some other criteria. Until the definition of "unmaintained" has been established, it is impossible to consider such a proposal. The Trac system is how we identify packages that need to be updated or fixed in some manner or another. Just because a package does not get updated timely, or a bug fixed does make it "unmaintained", IMO. -- Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
