Walter Webb wrote: > Why aim BLFS at the latest LFS? First let the actively maintained > packages get updated with the latest GCC and now GLibc. Other build > tools have also broken existing packages. If I were more paranoid > (perhaps I should be), I would think M$ was behind the incremental > changes to the C and especially C++ languages. C++ is bad enough > on its own; addition of a new prototype can cause ambiguities in > previously valid code. > > LFS 6.8 was apparently a fluke. It took me only about three weeks > to get from start to firefox. With 7.0, I have stopped at gtk+-2.20.1. > I tried before to use a newer one; it requires upgrading other stuff. > I have the sources gtk+-2.24.7 & gtk+-2.23.0, probably tried in that > order.
Give me a few weeks. I plan on starting the BLFS update to xorg probably right after Thanksgiving, and then I'll proably to fluxbox. From there I'll move to FF and it's dependencies. I hope to have that part updated by the end of December. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
