System User/Group consistency between CLFS/BLFS.
archaic at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Nov 21 14:35:46 PST 2005
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:57:48PM -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> We the Cross-LFS development team made a conscious decision to make
> this change. Like I have said numerous times the books are guidelines
> not strict compliance to standards.
If you are going to stick to that mantra, then why are you mad if BLFS
has numbers specified? They may not be strict compliance to standards,
but they are standards. BLFS has used these for quite some time and it
reduces trivial support questions and makes for an easier to follow
*guide*, one with suggested numbers. There were no problems before CLFS
decided to make it's *guide* different from BLFS's *guide*.
> As far as the FAM thing goes, I could care less, it was just a point
> I was trying to bring up, BLFS doesn't listen to the community anymore.
> It seems your the one who has the grudge.
Randy wasn't even in favor of the change initially. The majority of the
community (at least those who knew or cared enough to contribute to the
thread) decided on the fate of fam/gamin.
> What needs to happen is a nice discussion to take place. Which is
> impossible with the various attitudes in place. But until that can
> happen CLFS, will follow what we have set forward, and will continue to
> do what's best for CLFS.
What do you expect to gain from this discussion? It boils down to this:
1) CLFS is part of the LFS Project
2) BLFS is part of the LFS Project
3) A standard *guide* has already been implemented.
4) If numbers are purely arbitrary, then there is no valid technical
reason for CLFS to choose a non-LFS-Project numbering scheme. Just
pick un-used numbers and let's move on from this trivial argument
crap. It does nothing but hurt the community. Again, no gain is had
whatsoever for CLFS or the LFS projects as a whole if numbers are
arbitrary and yet a standard is already in place.
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
More information about the cross-lfs