--- On Sun, 8/1/10, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1 August 2010 06:58, Vinay Pawar <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> ĸen
I don't think there's a web directory containing blfs-svn snapshot tarballs.
There's only one available at any given time. I think having a range of
snapshots to choose from would be a good idea, regardless of the BLFS release
cycle.
Among libs, servers, utils and apps, a large portion of BLFS depends on Xorg.
Both Xorg and/or Mesa expect support from the kernel, especially newly
developed drivers that need a new kernel(LFS) and a new xf86-video driver from
BLFS.
So, when you spot a new LFS stable release and are done building it, one would
expect there to be a reasonably updated BLFS too. The current LFS-6.6 has a
good mix of glibc/gcc/kernel/etc but finding a good BLFS isn't always easy.
--
zoyd
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
