zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Sat Oct 15 17:15:16 PDT 2011
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:35:41AM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:10:28 -0500
> Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We may want to just remove the 'stable' version and label the
> > development version as BLFS-yyyymmdd.
> That makes a lot of sense. It's a labour of Sisyphus.
Agreed. For *any* recent version of LFS, the development versions
of BLFS are likely to have fewer problems.
The only issue I can see with pointing people to the development
BLFS is that, at least in theory, it can change under them -
sometimes such changes are good (unrelated updates, fixing problems),
other times thay are invasive (e.g. if gnome or xorg change - those
sorts of changes also typically take several days).
OTOH, if the bootscript changes in LFS-7.0 have nasty knock-on
effects on BLFS daemons (dunno, I haven't looked, I'm still
preparing to move my server to 6.8), using a version of
BLFS-bootscripts that suits 7.0 won't support earlier LFS versions.
But, if that is indeed the case, I'm sure Bruce will come up with
something. Hopefully, I'm just imagining a possible problem that
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the blfs-support