Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > 2007/12/15, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> I can't help but think that something like this would >> turn BLFS into just another distro. And an exceptionally >> difficult one at that. > > I think I disagree with "_just_ another distro". It becomes a > "documented distro".
But is the goal of the project to be a "distro"? Or is the goal of the project to create a book of popular package build instructions, to include dependencies? I've always considered it to be the latter. >> But you don't understand Ag, the package instructions *do* work. > > Well, maybe. But we don't know that they work, and that's more > important (but see below - you say that you rely on general public to > report breakage). Alexander, sometimes you take things too literally. For almost all the BLFS package updates I do, I end up using something from that package in one way or another. So we're not expecting the general public to report breakage except in a few special cases where the package cannot be reliably tested. >> We are only providing instructions to build the package. If it >> doesn't work after a successful build, we can only hope that a >> member of the community lets us know this. If we receive notice >> that a package does not *work* as designed, then we'll take an >> appropriate action. > > IMHO, this is slightly inconsistent. What you are trying to say is > that we receive such notices via the mailing lists and incorporate > them to the book - i.e., we only act as men in the middle between the > book and the general public. Only in a few special cases. As I said, most packages are expected to work using our instructions. -- Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
