LFS-stable, errata and new packages
Torsten at Vollmann-Online.de
Mon Aug 8 13:28:24 PDT 2005
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Hi Torsten,
> I think you're overlooking a couple of things
Sad but true most times. Well, it's always worth a try :-)
> - editors upgrade packages and do any testing them with the current
> book. Nobody, AFAIK, is testing package updates against the last stable
> book, other than to fix identified problems and vulnerabilities. Even
> then, changes might still introduce unexpected results.
This rises the question: How much are the packages tested the errata page
advises to use?
> - the svn book is by definition unstable.
Not questioning that! That's why I only use it on my spare pc to keep up
> Sometimes, it can take days,
> or weeks, for the problem to show up (e.g. past issues with bison and
> strip) and the fix might be to revert the version.
Well, point taken, but one last try: I think there should be some explaining
on the to-be updates page regarding this issue so that people could decide
wether to stick with the plain stable releases or to go with the updates.
Anyway (and I know this is wishfull thinking) the version numbering of
packages should hint toward wether there was a _major_ change in code/API
or a _minor_ fix/improvement. Also the changelog should indicate if there
is trouble on the horizon.
This could be an argument in favor or against my scheme so maybe I have to
stick with updating to new packages and hoping they work as proposed.
More information about the lfs-dev