On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 03:05:48PM -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 ;-)
>
> 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.
>
I was talking about updating a current system (which is why it's
called a rolling release), e.g. fixing vulnerabilities noted for a
previous version of a web browser (so, for firefox I'm on 64.0 and
had hoped to look at building the newer dependencies required by 65,
and for falkon I've updated qtwebengine - hoping that the fixes in
5.11.latest match those in 5.12.0).
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
