[blfs-dev] The future of BLFS

Armin K. krejzi at email.com
Sun Aug 12 14:05:44 PDT 2012

Hello BLFS team.

With GNOME 3.6 release candidate few days away, I decided to review 
stable GNOME packages in the book and update them to final versions 
available up to today so I can focus on the upcoming release.

With that, I'd like to say that I am going to upgrade GNOME in the book 
to the next version. If someone else wants to do the work, you welcome.

But looking at 3.x releases, every release adds some new (useless for 
most users, especialy LFS/BLFS ones). Just take a look at Rygel, Boxes, 
Baobab and such ... Also, I hate that they decided to make developer 
tools part of the release (in apps category). I've personaly never used 
them, I just built them in order to add them in BLFS.

With the next release I'd like to remove some of those packages, 
including all developer-related ones and previously mentioned ones, 
which will triger removal of virt stuff, gupnp, most of packagemm 
packages and Tracker. I could also remove some packages that have no 
real use, but they are in the book because some one said that we want 
full GNOME as defined by upstream. Those count libchamplain, libgxps, 
cantarell-fonts, seed and maybe few others.

With minimisation of GNOME, I could focus more on other areas of BLFS. I 
am not interested in any tex stuff, server software or some console 
tools, but I can help anywhere else.

With Andy gone, we are lacking staff to maintain such large amount of 
packages. With Bruce maintaining both LFS and BLFS, and most of us not 
having enough time because of holidays or work or such, we can profit 
with the BOOK minimisation.

I guess we can do better with external references for mentioned GNOME 
packages (as is done in KDE section), plus I could add some kind of 
order for GNOME packages (this one is terrible).

I would also like to use this thread to ask LFS devs if there are any 
plans for LFS freeze so I can build -dev platform and use it to build 
GNOME plus fix other packages that are possibly broken with glibc-2.16 

If anyone disagrees with something said here, please speak.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list