On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:56:08PM +0100, akhiezer wrote: > > So if next B/LFS will have one/more of e.g.: > -- > * gcc 6, no gcc 4/5, and gcc 6 doesn't readily (via flags/&c) behave > like gcc 4/5 ; > * kde5, no kde4, and kde5 has no easy kde4-compat mode; > * qt5, no qt4, and qt5 has no readily-usable qt4-compat mode; > * &c&c. > -- > ; then 'definitely' that's a major-version bump for B/LFS. >
I don't think any of those points are important enough to force a new version. In LFS, they are pretty much incidental - we have always tried to be on the leading edge. Gcc: it moved onto "new year, new major version" last year. Sure, at the moment there appear to be some rough edges - but that is not different from 5 and 4.9. Kde: irrelevant to LFS, and from my personal experience the late-kde4 changes already broke things (e.g. my user with a UID < 1000 could not login; and the ability to use a different wallpaper on each desktop had gone). Qt: 4 is dead. I happen to use qt for two things on my normal builds - vlc and qupzilla. When I tried building vlc with qt5 in January last year it did not build the gui. But when I built the then-current version last week it did build the gui. And qupzilla now requires qt5 (with qtwebengine). So, for people who do not use kde losing qt4 will have little or no effect. NB - as I said last week, it's only a number, although I don't like sumbers such as 1609 or 16.09 (too like ubuntu and too like kde application versioning). Of course, those who have time to waste could try a different approach : Numbers are so last century - we should name releases for colours. To start the bike-shedding: "sky-blue pink". ĸen -- This email was written using 100% recycled letters. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
