Cross LFS and UTF-8
lfs at jg555.com
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 linuxfromscratch.org
lfs at jg555.com
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
More information about the cross-lfs