Splitting LFS and BLFS Bootscripts

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu May 13 11:43:13 PDT 2004

On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:49:49 -0600 (MDT)
"Nathan Coulson" <conathan at conet.dyndns.org> wrote:

> I believe the best solution is to have 2 packages, lfs-bootscripts and
> blfs-bootscripts, starting with the 2.1.1 release, with the bootscript
> tree in the blfs cvs.

I completely agree.  As has been seen by recent events we *need* two
packages.  Additionally it'll keep all the minimalists happy, as they
won't have to download source for stuff they'll never install :)
> Another thing, the LFS side has almost stablized, and will not require
> massive updates between LFS book updates.  I do not believe we should
> follow the version number.
> I do not know what to expect on the BLFS side and cannot make a
> recommendation.

Due to the sheer size of BLFS and the number of packages in it that
require bootscripts, I'd expect that the blfs-bootscripts package
may require more frequent changes, although of course, eventually
it too should become stable fairly quickly.  This would seem to mandate
having separate version numbers for the two different packages.

Please go ahead with this as soon as is feasible.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list