Re: [blfs-dev] LFS and Git
Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I've been working trying to understand Git a little better and trying to > evaluate whether it is appropriate for LFS to migrate. > > What I've done is to copy the alfs repository to anduin and work with > that copy. > git clone git://git.linuxfromscratch.org/alfs.git > > After download, you can 'cd alfs' and look around. As an additional experiment, I installed and configured Trac 1.0.1 on anduin: http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org:8000/alfs/ I pointed it to the alfs git clone I created above. The 'browse source' works, but I don't really like the revision log. The hexadecimal 'Rev' just doesn't seem comfortable. It also looks like a lot of change info has been lost. For instance, if I go to jhalfs/jhalfs.sh, there is only one rev in the history. I've set this trac version up so it accepts new tickets from anonymous users. The anonymous user can also change a ticket. I intend to blow this instance away eventually since it is only a test. Also, comparing Trac, I don't see a lot of difference between the version we are currently using, 0.12.3, and the latest version 1.0.1. Please explore and provide feedback. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Package Currency
Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > According to Armin, yesterday, > > cairomm 1.10.0 1.11.2 * > > book is good, must be even. OK, I made cairo even only also even though there are no odd tarballs for that. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Package Currency
Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Em 14-03-2014 04:28, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: >> Olaf wrote: >>> On 2014-03-12 04:30, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> If you notice something wrong, please let me know, but please also tell me what the correct URL is that I can use to determine the most recent released version of the package. >>> >>> I recently stumbled over nano, BLFS has 2.3.2 which is actually a devel >>> release. 2.2.6 is the latest stable. >>> >>> Release scheme seems to be even=stable, odd=devel >>> Version should be retrievable from here http://www.nano-editor.org/ >>> With a release history (for reference) here >>> http://www.nano-editor.org/overview.php >> >> Ok thanks. I was just taking the max value at >> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/nano/, but I can change that to the last even >> numbered minor version. >> >> Fixed. > > Armin updated to 2.3.1 and I did it to 2.3.2, I think (cannot fine > changelog, though). Should it be reverted to 2.2 series? I don't think that's needed. Just wait till 2.4. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Package Currency
On 03/14/2014 12:42 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Em 14-03-2014 04:28, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: >> Olaf wrote: >>> On 2014-03-12 04:30, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> If you notice something wrong, please let me know, but please also tell me what the correct URL is that I can use to determine the most recent released version of the package. >>> >>> I recently stumbled over nano, BLFS has 2.3.2 which is actually a devel >>> release. 2.2.6 is the latest stable. >>> >>> Release scheme seems to be even=stable, odd=devel >>> Version should be retrievable from here http://www.nano-editor.org/ >>> With a release history (for reference) here >>> http://www.nano-editor.org/overview.php >> >> Ok thanks. I was just taking the max value at >> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/nano/, but I can change that to the last even >> numbered minor version. >> >> Fixed. > > Armin updated to 2.3.1 and I did it to 2.3.2, I think (cannot fine > changelog, though). Should it be reverted to 2.2 series? > > At that time I didn't know that it was development version. But I never saw any problems and it does seem to have more features than the one on archlinux, which is 2.2.x. Last stable release was quite a while ago and I don't think it really hurts having the latest release of the editor. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Package Currency
Em 14-03-2014 03:20, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: > Armin K. wrote: >> On 03/13/2014 12:09 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > > Both fixed. > >-- Bruce > > > Thanks for the fixes. According to Armin, yesterday, cairomm 1.10.0 1.11.2 * book is good, must be even. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Package Currency
Em 14-03-2014 04:28, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: > Olaf wrote: >> On 2014-03-12 04:30, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >>> If you notice something wrong, please let me know, but please also tell >>> me what the correct URL is that I can use to determine the most recent >>> released version of the package. >> >> I recently stumbled over nano, BLFS has 2.3.2 which is actually a devel >> release. 2.2.6 is the latest stable. >> >> Release scheme seems to be even=stable, odd=devel >> Version should be retrievable from here http://www.nano-editor.org/ >> With a release history (for reference) here >> http://www.nano-editor.org/overview.php > > Ok thanks. I was just taking the max value at > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/nano/, but I can change that to the last even > numbered minor version. > > Fixed. Armin updated to 2.3.1 and I did it to 2.3.2, I think (cannot fine changelog, though). Should it be reverted to 2.2 series? -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] about pax
Le 13/03/2014 19:43, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : > Pierre Labastie wrote: > >> I have found 2 sources for pax: >> - the mirbsd package, debianised by Debian (the "orig" I put in the >> ticket). It does not build as is, because the debian "rules" (a makefile >> actually) are shipped separately, and those rules use heavily the debian >> packaging system. So we would first have to make a package and put it on >> anduin. Also, According to some internet sources, the mirbsd pax program >> does not provide the pax format (?), and so, does not pass the lsb tests. >> - the heirloom package. You have to download the full heirloom >> "toolchest" (not a big deal, it is just 1MB), then edit a config file (I >> think a couple of sed's is enough), then issue various make commands (if >> you do not want to build the whole toolchest). It seems more doable, but >> I may miss some pros and cons, so I ask on this list whether there are >> issues with the heirloom package (it does not seem to be much used by >> distros) > I've never used pax. IMO, the only reason to have it is for LSB > compatibility. That would seem to rule out mirbsd, but I can't > understand Debian not meeting LSB requirements. > > As for the heirloom toolchest, can you answer some basic questions: > > What packages are available besides pax? A lot of utilities (bc, diff, ed...), see http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/tools.html > Do they conflict with programs from other packages? They have the same names as the utilities in coreutils or other packages. They default to be instaloled into otehr directories. OTOH, I think it is possible to just copy the pax executable (it is statically linked by default) to its final location, so that the other utilities are not installed. > > I'll ask on the LSB mailing list and see if they know. > > Thanks Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Package Currency
Olaf wrote: > On 2014-03-12 04:30, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> If you notice something wrong, please let me know, but please also tell >> me what the correct URL is that I can use to determine the most recent >> released version of the package. > > I recently stumbled over nano, BLFS has 2.3.2 which is actually a devel > release. 2.2.6 is the latest stable. > > Release scheme seems to be even=stable, odd=devel > Version should be retrievable from here http://www.nano-editor.org/ > With a release history (for reference) here > http://www.nano-editor.org/overview.php Ok thanks. I was just taking the max value at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/nano/, but I can change that to the last even numbered minor version. Fixed. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
