Ken Moffat ken at
Tue May 18 15:27:37 PDT 2004

On Tue, 18 May 2004, Brian Beattie wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 22:26, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> >
> > > That's exactly true. If we can't build LFS-6.0 from LFS-5.1 (or LFS-5.0
> > > for that matter), then it shouldn't be LFS-6.0.
> >
> > You _can_ build LFS-6.0 from LFS-5.1 or LFS-5.0. You just have to
> > upgrade your kernel, which people (our target audience) already do.
> Who is your target audience?  For instance I'm still running my machines
> on debian woody and looking at upgrade routes.  I don't run 2.6 on any
> of my stable systems yet.

 From memory, Gerard's target has always been people keen to be near the
cutting edge.  About half my boxes aren't on 2.6 yet, but people who
don't want 2.6 can stay with the LFS-5 series.  2.4 is mature, there
would be little to gain by basing new versions of the book on it.

 LFS is about moving the *book* forward, and addressing the new
challenges that brings.

 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list