Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/24/09 16:28 CST: > [snip getting ugly stuff]
Tobias has sent a personal apology via email to me. His apology is accepted. He made good points in his post. In fact, the BDB rejection may have been a bit steep by Guy. But let's get past all that. BLFS is indeed way behind. I suggest we just update to the newest releases of packages and see what breaks. I can't promise I can help build many packages, but I will review commits. If updating BDB breaks OpenLDAP, then we'll address it then. If XYZ breaks ABC, we'll address it then. Otherwise, development will be stifled. That is that last thing we need right now. We need package updates. Lots of them. It's been my experience that there is a certain path one must go in building BLFS. This path has usually been effective in discovering breakage. Anyway, my recommendation is to just jump in and update as many packages to the latest and greatest as possible. We'll address breakage as we discover it. Does anyone disagree with this policy? When you think about it, what do we really have to lose? It's not like BLFS (even the dev book) is stable and ready to be used with LFS-6.5. Update, update, update. Let's everyone get on the ball. Send in patches and recommendations. Keep the flow of information coming. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 17:36:00 up 18 days, 6:04, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.02 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
