My plans

Sébastien Maerten maerten.sebastien at
Thu May 13 02:16:36 PDT 2004

Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Jeremy Utley said the following on 13-05-2004 03:17:
>>  The majority of
>> people wanted the work we did to go into HEAD, which we resisted at 
>> first as being overly restrictive, but eventually accepted because we 
>> were TOLD that we wouldn't have to be fighting these fights all the 
>> time in HEAD, and our editorial staff would be granted the access to 
>> do our work in HEAD.
> Yes, but that doesn't mean that HEAD should unconditionally become 
> testing, does it? Because the fights still have to be fought, except you 
> don't have to do it anymore because it's on different levels 
> (testing/stable).

You spot something that have not been clearly discussed here (or I don't 
remember it). The discussions should clearly happen when renaming 
(merging?) HEAD to testing. This way if Jeremy and others don't want to 
fight, they can go on with HEAD, if they want (which I hope, since 
discussion may provide a better book), they can. All this long, the 
"official" book is still "stable" so that we do not give a "broken" book 
to the community.

> [..] As such, the work that you and the BE-LFS 
> folks have focused on is not only bleeding-edge systems but also more 
> functionality. 

I feel the need to emphasize the "not only" here, to prevent 
misunderstanding. And I fully agree.

> This narrows the focus of LFS

I would not say narrow here, rather the oposite, you can always do what 
you want, it is only given a "standard" way to have a more easily usable 
system. If this is or not to be in LFS or BLFS, I've already said I 
would like an additional, clearly "optional" chapter for this kind of 
things. We should not carry on this way in this thread IMHO.

> and definetely a break with the vision and philosophy LFS had 
> until then. 

I agree, and thus think it should be discussed elswhere.

> Let's keep and extend this courtesy and turn it into something 
> productive which will improve LFS and ultimately our lives!

Dreamer ;)
Count me in!

My personnal feeling about Jeremy's "problem" is that not every member 
of this list either have followed the "foundation" thread on -hackers or 
have expressed their feeling at that moment.

Maybe I've missed it, but I do not recall having read a clear 
announcement of the way things should be done from now, even though 
there have been anouncement of the "devellopement model" and editors 
nominations, I'm not sure everybody still agrees with how things are to 
be done now. As a proof of this, Mathew's message about CVS Changes did 
only get one (nice) answer talking about a bold anouncement, while this 
is a thread initiated by Alexander about far less controversial things 
and I can't count the number of messages in it... Could we do him the 
courtesy (is it the word?) of dealing with this elsewhere?

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list