Update to current packages or PLFS first?
Bill's LFS Login
lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Wed Apr 30 06:04:59 PDT 2003
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> As far as I can see we have two options to get development started again:
> 1) Begin with updating to all the latest packages, or
> 2) Integrating the pure-lfs.txt hint, or
I believe path-of-least-resistance would be best. That is, PLFS.
1) PLFS has had/is receiving extensive testing already. New packages are
at "ground 0".
2) Doing new packages first means doing testing of them from scratch and
then when the new PLFS changes are integrated, the packages to which
it is being applied are less-thoroughly tested than PLFS. Any problem
is then potentially in either the new package or PLFS. Kepp in mind
though that PLFS should be relatively insensitive to version of
packages other than the toolchain packages.
3) Applying PLFS to the already existing book stuff means a smaller set
of new things to be discovered/learned - PLFS techniques are applied
to a set of scripts and packages with which the editors/testers are
already familiar. Fewer mistakes, less new-learning in a short time.
4) When new packages are then applied to the PLFS'd system, any
anomolies are easier to identify/isolate.
> The week and a halve that Greg's going to be away would give us all the time
> we need to update to all the latest packages and test the new patches that
> come with some of the packages. Then there'll be less to test with the move
> to pure-lfs itself which is a large undertaking all by itself without having
> to update and test new packages alongside of it.
OTOH, I think it would be a *big* "Atta boy!" to Greg/Ryan if PLFS was
successfully applied using his hint/LFS-user resources without having to
ask for a ton of help from them. If you will, a QA of the hint and
> So that's my preference. Packages first, pure-lfs immediately afterwards. If
> anybody disagrees, speak up (or forever hold your peace).
lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev