Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 30/11/2014 11:25, Fernando de Oliveira a écrit :
On 29-11-2014 23:49, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:23:03PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
On 29-11-2014 20:02, Christopher Gregory wrote:
Well its come to this. I will no longer report anything that I find does
not compile. What people here are failing to realise is that they are not
actually building against a system that is a totaly new installation with
everything updated to the latest newest versions.
This is true. When we freeze for the next release is the right time for
doing that. Doing it in the middle of the terms only delays the updates.
Actually, on _this_ one point I'm with Christopher. I was here
before we became a rolling release, and I prefer to build things in
a fresh system (i.e. lfs-svn) before I commit them. For me, there
are a few exceptions such as firefox and sundry CVE fixes where I
have been willing to commit after merely testing on an existing
released LFS.
It has a freeze period each semester, where everything (almost) is built
from scratch.
I think I'll be devoting my BLFS time to doing builds in fresh
systems. Some of this will be in qemu, where for me a lot of things
are pointless (e.g. audio, video, power management, fcron, postfix),
and there are as always a lot of things which I do not build.
The problem with a rolling release is that breakage is not detected
until somebody tries to build from nothing, just like the problems
which the big distros find when they rebuild everything before a
release.
It is a paradox keeping the up to date and building from scratch. Each
time you do that, the queue for new package updates (each needing a
build from scratch) has increased a lot. And the book will never be up
to date. We have a live example now.
Build from scratch for each package update is a Sisyphus paradox.
Well, I agree with both Fernando and Ken: it just means that different editors
can do different tasks!
I think one month freeze is not enough to rebuild from scratch all the
packages and test all the sensible paths to one particular package, some of
which may lead to missing deps, while others don't. So it is important that
some editors do regular testing from scratch.
OTOH, it is also important that updates be done regularly, to track
regressions as early as possible. So it is important that some editors
regularly update the packages.
As noted by Fernando, those two tasks are somewhat incompatible. However
Sisyphus was alone, and fortunately we aren't!
Also, the use of package managers may allow to suppress all the non-needed
packages to build a specific one, without starting from scratch. It is another
approach, which may somewhat reconcile the two.
We do that best we can and I am satisfied with that. Compare what we do
to RHEL and Fedora. They have a lot of developers and have created the
entire Fedora release cycle dedicated to testing for RHEL.
We are not perfect, but we do a pretty good job.
Thanks go to all the editors who dedicate so much time and effort to
making LFS a success.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
