Suggestion (was Re: Apparent bash-ism in bootscripts)

James Robertson jwrober at
Thu Jan 29 08:47:09 PST 2004

Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeremy Utley wrote:
>>On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:57, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>>Thanks for the input, Ken!  We really appreciate it.  I'm going to open
>>a line of communication with the BLFS-Dev guys, check with them about
>>what process they would want to follow to have us submit bootscript
>>changes to them (patches to the book sent to LFS-Dev, or other methods).
>>To the rest of the community:  Now's your chance!  If you've ever wanted
>>to see some functionality included in the bootscripts, and feel its
>>something that would benefit the ENTIRE LFS community, I welcome you to
>>forward your feedback to Nathan and myself.  My email is
>>jeremy at, and Nathan's is now
>>nathan at
> Just wanted to make a suggestion about this last part. You may have
> thought of it already.
> When you post those various suggestions for comment on the lists, I
> suggest making a separate topic for each unrelated suggestion. One of
> the problems with lists is that a single thread can really wander
> because of the way people's brains associate things and then they post
> right in that thread.
> My thought is a separate thread for each major area will aid both you
> and the community in keeping focus on a particular topic in a thread and
> lead to faster decisions with less cruft muddying the waters.

If I might add one more suggestion along this line of thought.  One of 
the things I struggle with on the lists is "what are we after" or "what 
is the status with that decision" in a concise format.  The topics and 
RFC's wander and it is difficult (at least for me) to keep track, 
especially if a decision was made.  Would you guys be willing to keep a 
wiki page going for this?  Make it a simple bulleted list of features 
you are thinking about implementing.  Keep relevant list thread url's 
there about discussion of that piece/feature and then also put the 
decision of "do it" or not there with the link to the list where it was 
decided.  People can also place thier direct vote for a feature or topic 
right there as well.

I would suggest we think about this approach for a lot of decisions we 
need to make about the book.  The owner of the RFC or idea would be 
responsible to keep up with the page to keep everyone else up to date as 
well.  This, IMO, would potentially help with the "conversation die in 
the list" issue we seem to have.


James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 --
Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   --
LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list