On 1 August 2010 06:58, Vinay Pawar <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm using a LFS-6.6 with BLFS-svn-20100527 and intend on sticking to LFS-6.6 > until there's a kernel and/or gcc requirement. Also, I need to upgrade BLFS > to a June/July snapshot. > > I think if BLFS svn monthly snapshots are archived, it'll be easier for BLFS > users to mark them stable for their purposes. I have a whole bunch of blfs > snapshots and have kinda lost track of which is which. I don't remember ever > using a BLFS stable. I agree that blfs-dev should target lfs-dev, but at the > same time dramatic changes like gcc-4.5 could easily create a patch mess for > those who can't switch to gcc-4.5 yet, but need blfs-dev for the most part. > Also I think the note on the blfs download page about a release being delayed > isn't true anymore. BLFS completely missed a release. > > -- > zoyd
Sorry, I don't understand this (apart from the last sentence). AFAIK there are *no* monthly snapshots of BLFS. BLFS gets updated as and when. From time to time, certain versions of packages don't play nicely together - the last to affect me was libxml2/abiword - fortunately, abiword has managed some releases since then (they'd been very slow). This is just a fact of life. I agree that gcc upgrades - sometimes even within the same release series - can tighten their rules about what they accept. So far, I've never seen a case where applying a patch to fix this caused problems with the previous version of gcc. Equally, if the patch is described as "fixes problems with gcc-4.y" you can probably omit it if you are using gcc-4.x. ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!" -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
