Ken Moffat wrote: > It also doesn't solve all of my issues - I'm happy with xorg-7.4, > but I'm building a lot less than some people, and using a different > form of automation. I'd prefer to leave xorg to people who follow > the book's method.
Yes, sure! > I could throw in the toolkits (gtk+ and so forth), > but they won't be a lot of use without xorg. Yes, you'll have to wait until someone throws in xorg. > And until the branch > has enough to be useful, we can't expect users to test it. Correct, but irrelevant. This is strictly for testing by the Editors. > Also, branching seems unnecessarily complex and I don't see what it > gains (apart from potentially identifying "nobody cares and has > time to fix this" packages). Detecting broken stuff that nobody cares about was my primary intention. The second expected achievement is detecting packages where every editor deviates from what's written in the book. Besides, it gives you chance not to care about compatibility with the existing stuff. > I think that creating an almost empty > branch (chapters with very little in them - but with enough to get > it to render) will be a lot of work, and adding package details back > in will take more work than just editing what is in trunk. Well, there may be other solutions how to get from the current state to 6.4. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
