Guiding Principles (Repost)

Archaic archaic at
Tue May 11 12:34:42 PDT 2004

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> This still more or less applies (although proper security is now handled 
> at HLFS), but it may be rewritten so its focus is more sharpened and the 
> target audience better identified. (see 

As Project Leader for HLFS, I'll just say I'm not a paranoid freak, I
just play one on TV. That said, the only reason, IMO, for HLFS, is that
we do things that break some software (like X) because we focus on more
radical security measures. However, we also are spending a great deal of
time on the more base, trivial stuff like file/dir perms which I think
LFS should deal with more closely. IOW, I don't expect, nor want, LFS
and HLFS to be the same since the target is different, but LFS should
probably consider the basics a little more thoroughly.


Government should be weak, amateurish and ridiculous. At present, it
fulfills only a third of the role.

- Edward Abbey

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list