My resignation

Nick Fotopoulos weasel at
Tue Jul 13 17:01:47 PDT 2004

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 20:24 +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:42:09 -0400
> Nick Fotopoulos <weasel at> wrote:
> > Were there any good arguments made against 2 stable releases that I
> > missed?
> Aside from the usual "available resources" argument, no I don't think
> so.  If someone wants to take this on then feel free.  I for one though
> will have neither the time nor the motivation to contribute to a
> continued 5.x branch.
> Best regards,
> Matt

The 5.x branch really doesn't need much work.  The occational package
update, and maybe replacement if a package falls out of favor.  Actually
now that I think of it, thats how it is now.  With the exception that
some people in the community don't like the new direction.  The 5.x book
isn't going anywhere no matter what direction the book takes.  Its a
stable release, and will likely be around for a loooong time.  With that
said, what is the problem with 6.x taking a new direction?  If you don't
like the new direction, there is the 5.x book.  If you don't like the
current 5.x book and want to see changes made to it, just not the
extreme ones that are in 6.x then become a 5.x maintainer.

Matt:  This obviously wasn't directed at you, just happened to think of
it when replying to your message.  "You" is intended to mean the member
of the community how don't want the be stuff like udev, and hotplug.

Nick Fotopoulos

"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list