On Oct 15, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 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.
Is there a "snapshot" of BLFS (or tag/branch) in SVN (or whatever SCM BLFS
uses) that's "guaranteed" to work with LFS 6.8 (let alone 7.0)?
Q
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
