FW: About the extra mailinglist

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jan 19 10:08:18 PST 2001


> The distinction between lfs-chatter and lfs-linux seems a bit fuzzy to me
> (i.e. "RedHat 7.0 has problems that LFS doesn't have" would go to
> lfs-chatter, but "RedHat 7.0 has problems" would go to linux?)

btw the list isn't called lfs-linux but just linux (like the old 
linux at linuxfromscratch.org list)

Correct. If you don't intend to bring LFS in the discussion don't hold it on 
the lfs-chatter list. We all want a list to just talk away but we have to 
seperate LFS talks from non-lfs talks.

> IMHO what might make a bit more sense title-wise is to keep "lfs-discuss"
> and "lfs-problems" as you described, but then leave "lfs-apps" running for
> anything related to installing/configuring applications, and everything
> else that _doesn't_ have to do with installing, configuring, etc. to
> "lfs-chatter" (or even just plain "chatter").

I don't like that and I know of people who don't like that either. There are 
people who just want to hear about LFS and don't care about threads like the 
open-source/closed-source threads that's going on. If we put everything on a 
'chatter' list those threads are still mixing with LFS threads and we then 
still have the same problem we have on lfs-apps right now, we just move it to 
a different list but not solve the problem at hand: the seperation of LFS and 
non-LFS.

-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list