Udev in b6_0: to be or not to be

Larry Lawrence larry at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 1 14:33:59 PDT 2004

"Matthew Burgess" <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote in message >
> What would you rather us do then Larry?  Simply stop all development
> like has been done in the past?  I'm confused.  We *need* constant
> development in order to maintain inertia in the project and prevent the
> kind of stagnation that has occurred in the past.  Now you're saying,
> steadfastly, that this can't happen because we shouldn't be able to pull
> things out of the testing branch if it is deemed insufficiently stable?
> How else are we to get the developments from HEAD available for a wider
> range of testers, while still allowing HEAD to progress?
> Thanks for any constructive comments,
> Matt.

We are probably defining Testing differently.  I treat Testing as "LFS as a
whole".  Is the unit working to produce the correct results (i.e. teach,
stability). Package selection is happening when it moves from unstable to
testing.  The reality is that when a package moves, it will never get kicked
out, patches will be applied as is favored in this example.  I see this as
the stage where wording is refined, order is confirmed and release awaits
time and adjustments from feedback.

I am understanding that your Testing is a selection that you feel a greater
number of people will 'build' exposing problems unseen in HEAD. I hope
that's correct.  That may or may not be true and I have no basis for
arguement.  There are a great deal of community members building unstable
which limits those that come in just to build test.  One concern I have
about this is that your additional builders are probably people that should
be building stable, leading you to determine if bugs are package
combinations or build mistakes.

Based upon the reports I'm reading here, I think the HEAD team is doing an
excellent job of reaching, developing, and contributing to the greater Linux
community.  I would think stopping HEAD from going forward would stop
development, that is something I would not advocate.  I do envision longer
time periods between the advancements and when they enter the book then most
of the community.  There is not a correct period of time that can be
predefined, but rushing gives me concerns of appearing foolish.  I am
generally better rewarded for patience.  Enough philosophy.  Hopefully, this
will clarify some of our differences.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list