plans and wishes
gschafer at zip.com.au
Tue Jan 20 17:39:24 PST 2004
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:08:09PM +0100, Alex Groenewoud wrote:
> Joel Miller wrote:
> > Alex, your continuing
> > crusade to get $LFS changed to /lfs has met with nothing but opposition
> > (that I have read anyways) yet you still persist. Perhaps it is time you
> > let this one go.
> But I haven't yet heard a single valid argument against /lfs,
Alex, you are ignoring reality. There have been plenty of arguments against.
Reread the thread. Just coz you don't agree with them does not make them
I do see and acknowledge your points but I don't agree with them for LFS.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to achieve. It started off as "make a
new dir in the filesystem root" and now it appears to have morphed into "get
rid the variable representing the LFS partition".
There is no doubting that the $LFS variable is much less useful since the
integration of plfs. I suppose we could get rid of it. But I'm strongly
against using /lfs. Why can't we just continue to use /mnt/lfs but without
Making partition mounts under /mnt is the Unix way IMHO. Anything else is
"admin preference" and borderline. The LSB lists have seen some lively
flames about mount points in recent months i.e. /media and what not. Worth a
More information about the lfs-dev