On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:37:34PM -0500, Randy McMurchy enlightened us thusly
> Ken Moffat wrote these words on 05/15/05 13:22 CST:
>
> > Much of BLFS-6.0 works fine with LFS-6.1 - all the graphics libs,
> > general tools and libraries, X.org, half of gnome-2.8 (upgraded to
> > latest 2.8 versions, admittedly), much of the audio and video stuff.
>
> Much != all. :-)
>
> Some of the BLFS-6.0 book, however, is not appropriate for LFS-SVN.
>
> My point was that one would be better off using BLFS-SVN if you're
> building on LFS-SVN. Your mileage may vary.
>
> For instance, the Docbook stuff in BLFS-6.0 won't work rendering
> the current SVN (B)LFS. GCC is wrong. There are patches for some
> of the packages (can't say right off-hand which ones), etc.
>
> If BLFS-6.0 works for you, then great. However, there are some
> advantages to using BLFS-SVN.
Are we now at the stage where (B)LFS is as incompatible as m$ windows
between versions, largely because the discipline has gone out of the
release procedure in certain linux circles recently?
My anger is directed against "releases" of gcc, glibc, and kernels which
effectively should have been fixed before they were released. "Progress"
then continues, and as some bugs are put out, more are put in because of
"advances" in code. Then the end users are forced to try alpha code in
the hope of getting the bugfixes for the last version, and the general
mark for reliability sinks to a Beta rating (or lower).
A user like me who doesn't understand this stuff too well dares not
update.
--
With best Regards,
Declan Moriarty.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
