[RFC] Hotplug inclusion

Ronald Hummelink maillist at hummelink.xs4all.nl
Fri May 7 03:54:59 PDT 2004


>Zack Winkles wrote:
>
>>I'm proposing to include full hotplug support in the LFS book.  That would
>>imply three new packages: hotplug, pciutils and usbutils (all of which are
>>negligable in size).

+1

>
>The goal of LFS has always been to keep it minimal and have the rest of
>the stuff in BLFS. IMO, hotplug currently falls into the "Beyond"
>category. Just the fact that it would be marked optional indicates it
>should not be in LFS.

HotPlug is great !. Though I'm newbie to LFS, will you really use it on a
server ? Not me. After all, in stead of making LFS bigger, even in options,
isn't it supposed to, in the contrary, get smaller and delegate more
specific environments like security, users etc.. I think most of the people
take LFS as a base, and extend it with BLFS. Why cut off the server guys..
or server users ? 

Udev is the future, some future developments in the kernel will make it
a full blown requirement as well. Voting down hotplug/udev is just
delaying inclusion / running behind the wagon.

If you still don't want it, LFS: your distro, your rules, your problem.

-- 
Linux is like a small snowball rolling downhill. Microsoft is just
waiting down the mountain...



!DSPAM:409b6c2f84451071819424!





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list