On 1 August 2010 17:43, Vinay Pawar <[email protected]> wrote: > > One refreshingly good thing that happened in the last few releases is that > LFS stable is comfortably close to upstream 'stable' releases.
I suspect you mean different things by 'upstream' and 'stable' from what the rest of us do. Each package has its own upstream, and LFS has alway used many fewer patches than the main distros. I'm not intending to argue, I just find your mails hard to parse. > > Unfortunately, BLFS-stable is prehistoric in comparison. > Well known, and the Note: at the top of http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/read.html covers that. > This is a very tricky situation to be in. One way to mend this could be take > any BLFS snapshot between May-July 2010 be mark it stable. Point BLFS-dev to > LFS-dev. And hope that all the hundreds of updated BLFS packages, both in and > out of the book would confirm to gcc-4.5, either upstream or as patches. > Again, we don't specifically produce snapshots. I suppose there is some similarity with projects like ffmpeg where every commit causes a snapshot tarball to be generated. Except for occasional fubars in commits, the latest version is the one to use. Within the book, *many* packages have not been updated for a long time, and for some of these probably nobody cares. Always, if you have a problem building against recent LFS, whether the package is in the BLFS book or not, feel free to ask on blfs-support. In many cases, toolchain fixes can often be found in the big distros, and sometimes in gentoo. 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
