tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat May 22 10:26:05 PDT 2004
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>The main problem I see with LFS at the moment is that it doesn't support
>dynamic devices at all. Agreed, it never has done, but I still don't
>think that's a good position for LFS to leave it's users in, without so
>much as a warning telling them that their USB/Firewire/etc. hardware
>won't appear and disappear as they would expect it to (and as it's
>designed to) when plugging and unplugging it. Why do we treat static &
>dynamic devices differently?
Same reason we treat static and dynamic ip addresses differently.
>Now we have a
>viable alternative, that is being actively developed and supported by
>the kernel community, yet we still *might* not let our users have their
>dynamic devices supported correctly.
So we can include it in BLFS as an option and let the users choose if
they would like to install it. That way users are not left without
options and we don't dilute the current goals of LFS.
I asked this before without getting an answer. "How does including those
additional packages in LFS provide more educational value as compared to
including it in BLFS?"
>When answering this please respond with *why* you think it should or
>shouldn't, referencing known LFS goals, policies, etc. if at all
The goal of LFS has always been to have a been to have a basic system
which the user can build on. IMO, dynamic devices would be a step away
from that goal.
More information about the lfs-dev