Re: Potential problems with the LFS and BLFS 12.3 release

On 2/26/25 2:19 PM, Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via 
blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote:
> We have a potential problem with LFS and BLFS that I am asking for 
> feedback on how to proceed.
>
> CURRENT
>   We have LFS and BLFS almost ready to go with a few packages (3) that 
> still need testing on specialized hardware. There are also a few 
> tweaks needed to some instructions, but there are no show stoppers.
>
> PROBLEM
>   I was testing some LFS packages that have come in during the package 
> freeze and ran into a problem with udev/systemd. This problem is 
> caused by a change in the kernel headers for linux-6.13.4 that cause 
> udev/systemd to fail. This problem can be fixed with two seds or by 
> upgrading to systemd-257.3 but we cannot be sure that the
> rest of the many applications and libraries that depend on 
> systemd/udev will work
> properly unless we go through extensive testing. The changes are not 
> needed for
> what we have now using the linux-6.13.2 kernel.
>
>  The problem now occurs if a user upgrades the kernel when building 
> LFS.  We say:
> "The Linux kernel is updated quite frequently, many times due to 
> discoveries of security vulnerabilities. The latest available stable 
> kernel version may be used, unless the errata page says otherwise."
>
> Here are our options:
>
> 1. Continue with the 12.3 release.  We can add to the errata to tell 
> users NOT to
>    use the latest kernel or we can remove that quote above.
>
> 2. We can release a new lfs-12.3-rc2 and restart the testing process. 
> This
>    will delay the release schedule by one to two weeks but will make 
> upgrades
>    easier for users. It will also allow us to incorporate newer 
> package versions
>    that have published security issues.
>
>    I'll note here that there is no guarantee that during the delay 
> that new
>    packages with security issues will not be released. Sometimes a new 
> package
>    is not an issue, but the current problem is that udev/systemd 
> touches a huge
>    number of packages and we don't have a good way to ensure 
> everything is
>    consistent without re-testing everything.
>
> I am asking for community feedback about how we should proceed.

I'd go with #2 since that's what I did here ;) I've been running it for 
a few days now with no issues.  In this case, #1 doesn't make sense to 
me because of the number of kernel updates that come out.  If the 
release is delayed a week or two, is it that big of an issue?

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page