[blfs-dev] The future of BLFS

Armin K. krejzi at email.com
Sun Aug 12 18:19:05 PDT 2012

On 13.8.2012 2:46, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> 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.
>   I think you mean *not* going to upgrade ?

Uhm, I will try to upgrade current GNOME components to 3.6 ones when the 
time comes, that's why "I am going to upgrade ..."

>   LOL.  I'll try not to remind you that I originally put cantarell
> fonts in with the other TTF fonts - for those who need a tiny font,
> it isn't bad :)  For the rest of it - yes, I agree we have too many
> minimally-useful gnome packages.  Unfortunately, the history was
> that people believed that putting all of gnome into the book would
> be a good thing.  That view seems to have started in the mid gnome-2
> period.  From my POV, gnome-3 is very different and appears to be
> aiming to become no more useful than MS windows-8 will be.
>   Thanks for your prodigious amount of work on these packages.

I was just thinking like Ragnar or whoever did NOT add the remaining KDE 
packages to the book because they aren't too useful for MOST users. I'd 
like to move the development packages (anjuta, accerciser, 
gnome-devel-docs, glade with their deps), along with the rygel, 
gnome-boxes (and all virt stuff) and gnome-documents  (who needs that on 
desktop systems anyway? if you can't organise your docs so you can find 
them easily, then you have a problem!) and maybe something else that's 
less useful for normal users to the archive and create "Additional GNOME 
Packages" page with external references to those.

>> 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.
>   Actually, I'm not totally keen on minimalisation - if a package is
> being maintained by an editor, or continues to build and work
> without problems, then I don't see any urgent need to drop it.  The
> growing number of packages in gnome (where all of them need to be
> updated) is, of course, different from the general case.
>> 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).
>   If you can get a reliable build order, that would be great.  If
> not, you are no worse than the other people who have tried :)
>   I suppose that Wayne or DJ might feel differently, but I have no
> arguments.  Again, thanks for what you have done.

The build order is actualy simple. Just aim at shell and session to be 
the last, and you'll have your order. gnome shell itself pulls lots of 
stuff. Also, I could split them into "core" and "shell", with "core" 
being core components with metacity and "shell" continuing at that list 
all up to gnome shell itself.

>> 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
>> upgrade.
>   I think what's currently there is pretty close.  I haven't built
> since Matt started looking at glibc-2.16, but I hope to get my
> scripts up to date in a day or three.

Matt replied already on that one.

> ĸen

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list