Pure LFS - good to go

Matthew Burgess ca9mbu at eos.sunderland.ac.uk
Thu Feb 20 10:28:47 PST 2003

"Matt Reppert" <arashi at yomerashi.yi.org> wrote in message
news:20030220114720.7087358f.arashi at yomerashi.yi.org...
> Rather than be bitter towards people who are pointing out our
mistakes, it
> would be better to learn from them and improve our system. No? (Yes, I
> that Alan never said anything here, but I think it was rather nice of
> to make the mtab suggestion a couple of months back.)

But that's the point - they don't point out our mistakes.  They claimed
there are mistakes in the current method, but not what those mistakes
were - and because it's all fairly low level toolchain stuff some of the
mistakes may not be too obvious.  There is a distinction between slating
something and providing constructive criticism - IMO it was the former
that was provided.  I'm just glad there are several willing volunteers
(Greg, Ryan, et al.) that are trying to improve the build method to get
these guys off our backs.  It actually works out better for both parties
(the LFS community and the LKML) as once our build method is deemed good
enough, when we provide bug reports, etc. then they should be recognised
and reacted to.  The only concern I have is that I'm not sure whether
the Pure LFS will result in a respected toolchain.  Please don't get me
wrong - I have the utmost respect and admiration for the current work
that is going on and the level of commitment being shown, I just wonder
whether without toolchain & kernel guys/gurus on board the proposed
build method will be received kindly by anyone outside LFS.



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

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list