On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 01:48:39PM -0800, Paul Rogers via blfs-support wrote:
> >
> > In theory, BLFS is a rolling release, and therefore everybody
> > updates everything. I suggest that in practice nobody updates
> > everything.
>
> Au contraire. I do. I'd rather take the time and have everything consistent
> than end up even once having an obscure failure over some inconsistency.
> Documentation is virtually never entirely trustworthy, Packages that haven't
> changed already have functioning built scripts, so that's just spending
> cycles. Packages that have, have nearly ready build scripts. That I have to
> go through the book to check it all out and make updates is just good
> business.
>
In that case, I'll expect you to start notiying us of breakages from
updates to random packages ;-)
My comment was based on replies on -dev a while back, where every
editor was running some packages which were not up to date. But
also, for people who build a large number of packages, the waste of
electricity in updating every package for every update is a bit
silly. If it fixes a problem, sure. But many are just random churn
or fixing issues with other OS's.
ĸen
--
The Laird o’Phelps spent Hogmanay declaring he was sober,
Counted his feet to prove the fact and found he had one foot over.
-- Louis MacNeice, Bagpipe Music
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
