Randy McMurchy wrote: > My point being that the BLFS SVN book is supposed to be considered > an unstable environment, yet other LFS entities are using it for > their production environment, with the testing of it being that > "it builds". Yes, we know it builds. But only with much testing, > usage and overall synergy of the built packages can it be determined > that the environment is stable.
Where did this conversation come from? Anyway, people are building and using items from BLFS SVN all the time, probably more than you realize. What's more, the packages in BLFS svn are seldom unstable versions of the software. They're almost always what is considered the latest *stable* release by the developers. So in a sense, they're saying that package is known to work reliably in a sane environment. BLFS (svn or otherwise) already works on a sort of cushion of stability. Usually, it's the LFS environment and system that potentially causes any instability in the equation. I generally agree with the principle you've stated, but I also think it's taking it a bit over the edge to worry too greatly about possible instability of svn BLFS - especially when it's a question of developer use. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
