Qrux wrote: > It's not about whether or not it's "fixable". > > The point is the time. > > It takes time to figure these things out. This one small > issue--originally intended as a potential alert to the impact that these > changes might have--has already involved 3 people and several hours. > That's...what? Over $1,000 worth of time spent?
LOL. > I'm not ready to subject > working downstream to possible breakage because someone wanted a cleaner > build. I'm advocating testing before going ahead. I'm not sure why > there's so much opposition to it. There isn't opposition to testing, but who is going to do all the testing needed? > BLFS can be viewed as essentially a > huge piece of testing infrastructure for LFS. Why not leverage it to > help test? Then, when things work, by all means--go ahead with the updates. I suppose some may look at it like that. I think many (most) look at it as a way to build the applications they want, not a "lets test it and see what breaks" system. The reason we've been somewhat successful is that the instructions we use are pretty solid. I think most users recognize that there will be occasional problems, but they are also not signing up to be beta testers. Change management is really difficult. Look at the reputation of KDE4 and Gnome3. Even Ubuntu is being criticized for their latest release. > A while back, I advocated breaking BLFS into (at least) 2 pieces. > There are core parts of system that should get tested and verified. That's certainly a lot more than 3 people and several hours. What you are saying is coming across as "I've got this big idea that requires a lot of work -- you guys go do it." That may not be intended, but that's the way it sounds to me. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
