Bruce Dubbs schrieb: > I understand your point, but I was thinking of the future. It's true that > any > package we update now should be against 6.5. The absence of a line that says > "Last Reviewed means that it was before 6.5. > > In the future, if we get behind again, then the Last Checked line does > provide > some useful information. > > For the present, it gives a quick check (without searching through 200+ > tickets) > that a package was reviewed recently and doesn't need further review right > now.
looking at the php package i'd like some more details not only about which lfs was used for a sucessfull compile, but in addition what version of dependencies. as i mentionned in an earlier thread (RFC: BLFS-6.4, 09/07/20), something like "last checked with lfs x.y, using libxslt-a.b, pcre-c.d...", including needed additional ./configure options. as soon as my current lfs-build is finished, i'll go on to build a new server with apache, mysql, php, samba, cups. when/if sucessfull, i'll post an example for php here. i know this can fill up the pages, as there will be quite a number of possible combinations... as i wrote, the wiki might be the right place for such additional information. as far as i understand, a blfs-book should match a lfs-book. the "last checked" makes sense in the dev/svn, but not in a final book. same for the additional dependencies as they should be consistent within a final book (i guess). tobias -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
