weasel at beyondnormal.org
Tue Jul 13 08:42:09 PDT 2004
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:12 +0200, Dan Osterrath wrote:
> Isn't this quite like it is done at Gentoo?
> There is a community around the book describing how to build a Linux
> distribution - the official LFS distro. But the community should not be fixed
> on this book but may show alternatives. This might be in form of hints or
> even as seperate branches.
> I like this idea, so I would vote for it too.
> I think nearly everyone has devaited from book when building its own LFS. For
> example I have to smile when looking at the discussions about the bootscripts
> some time ago. I have my very own bootscript system which fits my needs much
> more than the LFS bootscripts.
> So what to do with it? I donated it to the LFS community but you rejected it.
> No problem as I don't need any acknowledgements and accept your dicisions to
> use the current system. But this means that my system can only be maintained
> by me. I could publish it at my own homepage and write a hint for it but I
> got no time to do so.
I still don't understand why there has to only one single stable book.
Why can't there be a be-lfs, and a lfs? It seems to me that majority of
people who do not like the idea of having udev-hotplug in the book would
be served well by the current 2.4 kernel based 5.x book. If they want a
2.6 kernel, its a simple recompile and boot loader reconfiguration.
Were there any good arguments made against 2 stable releases that I
-- Nick Fotopoulos
"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."
More information about the lfs-dev