Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : > Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> Em 28-02-2014 18:23, Ken Moffat escreveu: >> >>> i686, nor if we should care. >> >> Is i686 gong to be deprecated? > > I don't think so. My main system is still a 686, but I don't normally > do a full development on it. If we don't have the hardware, then we > could always build in a virtual environment. > > -- Bruce > > > FWIW, I've built successfully rc1 on virtual 32 bit, but not done much BLFS testing.
Now, I have a question. I have never been involved in development, so just take my question as a mark of curiosity: what is the reason to expect release of LFS and BLFS to be close in time? I would think of something like: - LFS rc1 (duration: a few weeks, unless there is a need for rc2): - freeze packages on LFS - extensive testing of LFS build; correct security issues and blockers - update BLFS svn as usual - LFS stable, BLFS test against LFS (duration: a month or so): - restart updating LFS svn - stop testing/updating BLFS against the previous LFS release - begin building/updating/tagging BLFS against the recent LFS release - BLFS rc1 (duration: a few weeks + possibly rc2,3...): - freeze packages on BLFS. - extensive testing of BLFS build; correct security issues and blockers - tag untagged packages - BLFS stable What I see as an advantage is that during the LFS rc stage, it is still possible to change a few things on LFS, without risk to break already tagged pacakges in BLFS. But there may be drawbacks I do not see... Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
