On 1 August 2010 15:10, Vinay Pawar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > --
Isn't the latest BLFS (with either fixes to some of the problems, or newer versions of some packages) always the right place to start ? I agree that we have *many* things which need to be updated. In my own case, I had to upgrade Mesa after a bug that locked up my radeon r200 was fixed, and that meant newer libdrm, one or two other libs or headers needed to be newer, and I also moved to the current ati driver and a newer xorg server (in the same series). The versions of these in the book seem to work for many people, I was just unlucky in using old less-interesting hardware. BLFS _always_ lags LFS. Now that we seem to have some agreement about building against variously the current LFS release and recent LFS-svn, we might start to catch up with some of the backlog. But there are many packages in BLFS which few people are interested in - if you use these, you are more likely to find problems. 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
