Em 29-04-2014 20:04, Ken Moffat escreveu: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 09:38:11AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> Em 28-04-2014 13:37, Pierre Labastie escreveu: >> different. >> >>> For now, I'll finish updating BLFS's gcc to 4.9.0, then build today's or >>> tomorrow's version of LFS, and test that the current BLFS book builds (using >>> automation as much as possible). >> >> I use automation for LFS, never for BLFS, unfortunately. >> >> I think that you, Bruce, Ken and I will be using each on a different >> LFS-svn. >>
> If it matters, I'm intending to use whatever is the then-current > LFS for all of the following - sysvinit without systemd [ My systemd > build started out as sysvinit, then got converted. In the future > I'll make them separate things in my scripts ], systemd, eudev [ now > at 1.6, looks as if the fhandle requirement will be in the _next_ > release ]. Both the sysvinit [ i.e. udev from systemd ] and systemd > versions will be throw-away systems, and one might overwrite the > other. Probably, all three will use a different version of LFS-svn. ĸen, For me, it matters very much. Thanks for the post. By sysvinit without systemd do you mean a hybrid system running sysvinit? > For these, I need to check the changes in my scripts to separate > "sysvinit" from systemd, and to update packages in BLFS. So far, > the two gnome applications I use (gucharmap, evince) are stuck at > 3.10. And I need to work out where I am going with cups (still on > 1.7.1, to avoid avahi), and to test things on x86_64 with gcc-4.9.0. The other post I wrote before hopefully will help with cups. BTW, it is from upstream: https://www.cups.org/str.php?L4402+P-1+S-2+C0+I0+E0+Q > > I guess that is going to take most of the time I am able to commit > to BLFS, so my edits will probably be few. > >> The reason for this reply is to say that you are correct. Next time of a >> big LFS change, we all could agree on which svn version to use. I don't >> remember what was done, before LFS-7.0 release. > > In the first couple of months after 6.8, I think we had a toolchain > change (probably gcc, but I don't remember) which impacted a few > BLFS packages. ISTR Andy was active in using sed to fix the > breakages as they came to light. Then I dropped out - doing other > things, then I went on a couple of long holidays. Throughout that > time, I watched what was happening on the lists and didn't think > there was anything to worry about. Until I first tried to boot 7.0 > ;-) Summary - ALL changes will hurt _somebody_, and even if we all > build on the same version someone will still get hurt sooner or > later. Thanks, I really cannot remember anything of that period, don't know why. But I understand that you confirm he was with some LFS-svn and fixing BLFS. > > I still prefer the idea of separate branches to trial changes, but > svn is not branch-friendly IMHO - despite what Bruce thinks - and > I'm not prepared to devote the time to maintaining an eudev branch, > so I'll have to work with whatever Bruce is doing. As he said, we > are months away from a release. Providing we don't lose all our > testers, no doubt everything will be for the best, in the best of > all possible worlds.[¹] Agreed. And I think it has great probability of having all problems sorted out during this time. > > ĸen > > 1. "Candide, ou l'optimisme" - Voltaire. Bruce always says I'm too > pessimistic ;-) > LOL. I don't think you are so pessimistic. You have what I think can be called (good) dark humour. And good memory, I never remember sentences from the books I've read. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
