[blfs-dev] Package Freeze for LFS-7.8
zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Mon Sep 7 12:29:09 PDT 2015
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:10:43PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Upstream has finally released util-linux-2.27. I am building a full LFS
> version now using -j1 for timing data and all Chapter 6 tests. After
> checking it out, I intend to release lfs-7.8-rc1. If all goes well, that
> should be later this evening (US Central time - GMT-6).
OK - I have not even got around to checking my test results from my
build this weekend, I suppose I can now drop that from my ToDo list.
It will be some time before I start a new build - I need to shakedown
the recent changes in my scripts, and check a few things are still
working. That might take me some days. At the moment, my i3 (only
4GB) is building qt5 and the desktop there is unusable for several
minutes at a time (memory pressure).
I've also got a libreoffice patch for boost-1.59.0, which works for
me, but I need to review how my build options compare to the book
(e.g. I don't build for kde4, nor databases). I also need to head
> For BLFS, I have added a set of lfs78_checked and lfs78_built tags. I have
> also changed the Trac milestones to default to version 7.9.
> I would like to institute a slushy package freeze for BLFS. By that I mean
> that package updates for BLFS should be made with respect to other commits
> with these rules:
> 1. Finish updates in Trac marked for 7.8.
> 2. If a new upstream package version is released and no package that has
> been marked as lfs78_checked is dependent on that package, then it can be
> updated. We do need to be careful with this if we want to update a package
> that has other packages depending on it. Other editors may have checked the
> package and just not updated the tag yet. Use this option with caution.
Is there an easy way to extract dependencies from the xml (apart
from find -name '*.xml' | xargs grep ) ? And do you include optional
dependencies in this ?
> 3. If we become aware of a critical update to a checked package, then we
> need to discuss it on blfs-dev and get consensus that the package should be
> updated before BLFS-7.8 is released.
> 4. When tagging, be sure to remove the gcc tag as that is redundant for
> These rules are not absolute. We can discuss them and either modify them or
> make exceptions according to circumstances.
> -- Bruce
>From what I've seen so far, I think BLFS is in much better shape
than when we last discussed 7.8.
Il Porcupino Nil Sodomy Est! (if you will excuse my latatian)
aka "The hedgehog song"
More information about the blfs-dev