On 02/21/2014 05:29 PM, Armin K. wrote: > On 02/21/2014 03:51 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >>> Em 20-02-2014 23:00, LFS Trac escreveu: >>>> #3505: linux-3.13.4 >>>> ----------------------+------------------------ >>>> Reporter: bdubbs@… | Owner: lfs-book@… >>>> Type: task | Status: new >>>> Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.5 >>>> Component: Book | Version: SVN >>>> Severity: normal | Keywords: >>>> ----------------------+------------------------ >>>> New point version. >>>> >>>> We can do this for 7.5. The rule here is that we can update point >>>> versions but not major or minor versions. >>> >>> Couldn't it be the same for blfs, for almost all packages? >> >> That's worthy of discussion. Perhaps end packages and not libraries >> would be amenable to this type of rule. I'm hesitant to update >> libraries right now because of possible breakages of programs already >> marked as lfs75_checked. For the few packages that are marked >> lfs75_built, then there is no good reason not to update. >> >> Is that a reasonable compromise? >> >> -- Bruce >> > > I'd prefer not to touch anything (especially modify dependencies at this > late cycle) unless it's really worth upgrading, ie security issues, > feature required by some other packages present in newer version but not > older, etc. >
Also, there's a note in LFS telling people to use latest kernel 3.13.x, so it matters little. API headers don't change much (if all) anyways. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
