Matthew Burgess wrote: > As regards to LFS unstable living up to its name, that's probably > because we chose the right name for it, i.e. we don't try and pretend > that it's something it isn't. I don't see why you thought a :-( was > necessary. Yes, testing could have been more thorough, but builds take > so long on my box I thought I'd be able to sneak that little change in > there.
IMHO, that's a cop-out. Large efforts have been spent on having the ability to build directly from the XML source. With jhalfs, you have a golden opportunity to change the LFS development paradigm and raise the LFS QA standard simply by taking advantage of some smart automation. Technical excellence is nigh! :-) But no, we are still stuck in the past where we just commit changes and expect unsuspecting testers to report any fsckups. How incredibly soft!! I believe that more folks would be inclined to build and test the unstable LFS if they knew it was guaranteed to be at least free of obvious brokenness. As an aside, very soon this will become even more acute when GCC-4.1 is released. It will be the first time I can ever recall stable LFS being a full 2 major GCC releases behind the eight ball. Yes, I realize that GCC development moves much faster these days and is partly the reason... Anyhoo, just some food for thought.. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
