On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:35:41AM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:10:28 -0500 > Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We may want to just remove the 'stable' version and label the > > development version as BLFS-yyyymmdd. > > > > That makes a lot of sense. It's a labour of Sisyphus. > > Andy Agreed. For *any* recent version of LFS, the development versions of BLFS are likely to have fewer problems.
The only issue I can see with pointing people to the development BLFS is that, at least in theory, it can change under them - sometimes such changes are good (unrelated updates, fixing problems), other times thay are invasive (e.g. if gnome or xorg change - those sorts of changes also typically take several days). OTOH, if the bootscript changes in LFS-7.0 have nasty knock-on effects on BLFS daemons (dunno, I haven't looked, I'm still preparing to move my server to 6.8), using a version of BLFS-bootscripts that suits 7.0 won't support earlier LFS versions. But, if that is indeed the case, I'm sure Bruce will come up with something. Hopefully, I'm just imagining a possible problem that doesn't exist. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
