Cross LFS and UTF-8

Jim Gifford lfs at
Tue Jan 17 16:00:57 PST 2006

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I think that Cross-LFS should focus on cross-building and related issues
> only and follow LFS everywhere else. If you don't like the way something
> has been implemented in LFS, then work to get it changed in LFS. If you
> have an alternative solution, and solid reasons for adopting it, I don't
> see why LFS wouldn't consider it.
> Otherwise you're separating yourself from LFS and causing rifts within
> the community. Also you're adding extra support issues, for yourself,
> for BLFS and for LFS.
> If you are one of the CLFS devs and feel as Jim does, please speak up
> and state your reasons why. I feel very strongly that CLFS should *not*
> try unecessarily to differ itself from LFS, but that it should try to
> synchronize with it as much as possible.
But this is going to be a core issue, since UTF-8 support is in LFS, 
everyone expects it to be in CLFS. Our decision to test alternative 
build methods for building a UTF-8 compliant system will not interfere 
or detract from LFS's build. But may open everyone to the fact that 
there is alway's different ways to get to the end result. CLFS will 
never be exactly like LFS, just the same end product. Matt and I have 
discussed this numerous times, we will never force LFS to take our 
ideals or build method's. It's up the leader of the particular book of 
how to pursue the way they feel.

You never know during our testing we may found out that the way LFS has 
it is the proper way, but we got to investigate the different 
possibilities, this is what our community expects from us.

It will not change how BLFS will support it, it will only change on how 
we make the system work during the LFS build process.

Plus a lot of people don't see the need for UTF-8 support, that's why I 
purpose the notes implementation, but that's up to the CLFS community to 

jim at
lfs at

LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986

More information about the cross-lfs mailing list