LFS-6.0 print process
bdubbs at swbell.net
Wed Jul 7 17:32:53 PDT 2004
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:56:08 -0600
> Gerard Beekmans <gerard at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>>On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 11:23, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>>I had planned to wait until the weekend to create the 'testing'
>>>branch, but it now makes more sense (to me at least) to have the
>>>testing branch act as both the 'testing' and 'print' branch,
>>>otherwise I fear we'll spread our resources too thinly and have to
>>>duplicate changes over too many branches.
>>Under the circumstances that seems like the best thing to do yes.
>>>>Likewise when changes to HEAD are made I'll pick them up if
>>>>applicable (for instance textual updates to things like
>>>>Acknowledgements, and whatever else).
>>>Lightly disagree here. If the changes are applicable to 'testing'
>>>then they should be made there in the first instance, then
>>>propogated upstream to 'unstable' if applicable. That way we avoid
>>>a possibly confusing 2 way syncing process. This doesn't halt
>>>development of unstable in any way - those changes that are *only*
>>>applicable to'unstable' can still be made of course.
>>Understood. When I said that before I assumed testing was part of HEAD
>>and not a separate, but HEAD+testing being the same branch at the
>>moment, your proposal makes more sense.
> Well, I've created the testing branch at
> svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/branches/testing. So far I've
> removed hotplug. So, still to do are:
> 1) Confirm with BLFS that ed can migrate across
> 2) Confirm with BLFS that net-tools can migrate across
I see no reason not to put these packages into BLFS if they are removed
from LFS. I can't commit right now to a time frame, but I'd say by July
18 at the latest.
More information about the lfs-dev