On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:29:57PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:49:14AM +0200, lifrsc.m.klsw...@spamgourmet.com > wrote: > > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > > > I'm also puzzled why anyone would build 6.3 now. It's old. > > > > > > ĸen > > Maybe because the last stable version of BLFS is BLFS 6.3 ? > > > > Klaus > Sure it is. But, most of the time people can use development BLFS > without problems. > OK, so I'm back in business - didn't need a replacement set-top box. I'll try to elaborate:
The development BLFS is almost always "coherent" within itself. Worst case, it might be necessary to rebuild a small group of packages if a version turns out to be problematic (e.g. xine-lib, ffmpeg, kdemultimedia a few months ago). The tradeoff for using an old released BLFS with the matching old LFS release is package bugs including vulnerabilities. Usually, we prefer to update to a new release of a package to fix bugs, but sometimes too much ha changed. Last week I decided to stop maintaining my own LFS-6.3 installation because I couldn't find a vulnerability fix for the old version of poppler which compiled. Now, there is another possible source for a fix for that (rhel5) so I might reconsider, if time permits (but I've already spent far too long on computing, and too narrowly focussed on x86, this year). ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
