jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat May 22 03:09:15 PDT 2004
Matthew Burgess said the following on 22-05-2004 11:52:
> Actually it'll start becoming a requirement sometime during the 2.7
> kernel, but as we won't release a book based on such a beast, then yes,
> 2.8 will mandate udev. However, I see nothing wrong in planning in
> advance to make sure we'll have no issues with it.
Yes, but that only is an argument to use it in unstable, *not* in
testing or the next stable. Unless LFS-6.0 also plans to include the 2.8
>>We're producing a book, not a distro.
> I don't buy this argument at all. udev is simply an alternative to our
> make_devices.sh script. If you say that we can't have udev in the book,
> then you're also saying we shouldn't have make_devices.sh in the book.
> This makes our LFS system unbootable and therefore unusable - surely
> contradicting even the most basic of LFS' goals?
Then read my argument again in full context and full citation; you
misrepresent my words and twisting it to fit your own argument. I said:
"LFS has never been bleeding edge; it just used the latest stable
release of a package if available. I don't see any reason to change that
now, especially not to serve desktop use. That would be narrowing of our
focus and target/intended audience. We're producing a book, not a distro."
The argument is about changing the focus and audience of LFS by
including bleeding edge software.
Matthew, have you already made up your mind about it?
More information about the lfs-dev