Hello, I see no other choice except the removal of the xfsprogs package from the book (already done in r7283). Essentially, it compiles, but doesn't work with LFS-6.3 (and was apparently updated without any testing in order to fix a 404 error).
The mkfs.xfs program, version 2.9.6, produces filesystems that are incompatible with the LFS-6.3 kernel (although a workaround is known since today). This is, esentially, a duplicate of http://bugs.debian.org/465737. I think that such a critical system tool should not be allowed to be updated without any testing. The problem has been fixed in version 2.9.7, but the upstream intention is clearly to make "lazy-count=1" the default again in some future version. Since they remove old versions, the readers are forced to deviate from the book, so this failure is just waiting to happen again after the BLFS-6.3 release. So, unless BLFS mirrors the package and explains the possible future issue with the updated versions, I object to uncommenting the package. Now to Randy's words from blfs-book: > I see that DJ updated the package > and you provided a workaround. Therefore, that means to me that > the package works, and there is Editor interest. This doesn't count. I noticed the bug only because I am subscribed to the mailing lists that get all messages concerning all release-critical Debian bug reports and all messages about Debian installer development. I don't have any xfs filesystems on my computer (specifically created one in qemu on a loop device just to test the bug). Also, I am not currently able to validate the instructions in the book ("make install-dev" fails), as my LFS-like system is an extracted LFS LiveCD that has an important deviation from the book: it disables all static libraries with config.site. While config.site is no longer there, the libtool script still differs from the typical LFS installation, and I guess that this may be a problem. > That's why I'm thinking the package should stay. Continued discussion > is welcome. If there's already been discussion to remove the package, > then I completely missed it and I send my apologies. There was no such discussion. Let's have it now. If there are strong arguments for xfsprogs to stay in the book, let's update the package to 2.9.7, mirror it, point the download link to the mirror, and explain the incompatibility that will certainly reappear in the future (and the fact that old versions are removed upstream). -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
