Merge BLFS and LFS? [Was Re: What is LFS anyway?]

jeremy at jeremy at
Mon May 10 10:58:15 PDT 2004

> The above reasons are also why I am principally against proposals to
> include packages such as hotplug or udev. Despite Jeremy's claims that
> we're holding back progress of LFS by not including them, I believe the
> distinction as outlined above is crucial for both projects to keep their
> focus narrow and allows them to achieve technical excellence.

But, in time, udev WILL be essential to any linux system, and we all know
that.  What are we to do when that time comes?  Stop development of LFS
entirely?  Delay things at that time to figure out how to include udev?
We have the information here, and available, why not get the book ready
for that ahead of time?

Hotplug is a little different, I agree, a case can be made for not
including it in the book.  But, the use of hotplug requires planning
from the get-go to integrate it, as it integrates so highly with the
boot process, that we pretty much have to account for it in the base
build, and as has been said before, it's pretty much the preferred
method for handling hot-swappable devices, which is why we think it
should be included.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list