On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:12:57PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > If there is a problem with the development book, it will either be fixed > within a day or two or a ticket created to remind us it fix it before the > next stable release.
Exactly. Maybe you didn't understand my use of 'random' in context. It is entirely random when upstream changes a package version, finds a bug, gets a security issue fixed, etc. So the changing of the dev versions of the book is random; unlike the stable versions. > Correct. See http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/read.html > > "Current Development > > This is the BLFS Book in its current development state. Changes can happen > that break the build of some packages temporarily. Since this version of the > book is in constant change, there is no separate errata." I wrote about the LFS book, but you quote from the BLFS book with different text under the same header "Current Development". Adding the statement about there being no separate errata to the LFS Book would have stopped this thread. At least one line in the LFS dev book errata link such as the 8.4 version one, "There are no current errata items for LFS 8.4.", would be nice; rather than getting an incorrect message, "Page not found! Perhaps you mistyped the URL?" Come on, you know that's from the clickable link http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/development/ and not a "mistyped URL". > That's difficult to understand. The current stable book is less than 5 > months old. > > The development book is updated as upstream releases new package versions. > We have no control over when that happens. Some packages are released > several times a month (e.g. kernel), some only every few years (e.g. grub). > Availability as to editors' time also is factored into the update timing. > > Those packages that don't have "beans worth of difference" frequently have > significant security fixes as well as internal improvements, even if the > build instructions do not change. This was an observation, not a criticism. It was in response to Ken's poke that someone should use the stable book on a first build, rather than the development book. There is very little difference between the lastest stable book and the development book, with the execption of package versions. I've been building software from source since 2003, so it doesn't bother me. On my system(s) I don't run the latest stable release of much at all. Ken asked, "Do you have any specific LFS packages where you required a newer version to build on your host distro ?" I had already explained that is WHY I did my first build with the dev book. Arch was using GCC 9.1.0. The book stated, "GCC-5.2 including the C++ compiler, g++ (Versions greater than 8.2.0 are not recommended as they have not been tested)." You may split hairs that it states "not recommended" and say that didn't mean I couldn't use it; but I've seen how petty, adversarial people in #lfs-support on FreeNode quickly blame the person attempting to discuss a problem with statements such as is in their topic, "Any deviations from the book shall be discussed immediately." I've had this channel open and logged since June 8 of this year, and was quite surprised to find there is almost no one trying to help troubleshoot a problem, but primarily just chastising folks for making a mistake and telling them to 'start the build over'. I'll state publicly as I have before, that I doubt seriously Gerard's reason for publishing any LFS book was to only teach people how to copy and paste. Don't take that wrong, either. It's admirable that the book works if you copy and paste; that's exactly how I've written every HOW-TO since 2003. The prerequisites, if any for the particular HOW-TO, are stated. And it's all been tested by me prior to publishing for anyone else's use. (Side note: I was flattered today as a co-worker came to me for help, and showed me the steps the person in trouble had taken ... and it was one of my HOW-TOs.) But in the same vein, I imagine, and glean from reading, that Gerard was/is more interested in us learning about the Linux system than how to copy/paste perfectly. If you don't like me questioning or making suggestions for things I feel would be an improvement, just say so. My intention is not to attack, but to discuss. It's all just 0s and 1s to me. Thanks > -- Bruce Bruce -- There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
