> > > > > > 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 ;-)
I thought I was being clear, but apparently not. I am a contrarian from your suggestion. I subscribe to the theory and rebuild everything every time I build a new LFS. It's just easier that way. Machine cycles are cheap, debugging time is expensive. -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
