Splitting LFS and BLFS Bootscripts

Nathan Coulson conathan at conet.dyndns.org
Thu May 13 13:43:11 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.
> Cheers,
> Matt.

I got a project I have to get done by the 14th, but after that.

Only question I got, is where should the BLFS Scripts go?  BLFS CVS?  or a

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list