udev problems

Nick Fotopoulos weasel at beyondnormal.org
Sun May 23 06:10:20 PDT 2004

On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 11:30 +0200, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Nick Fotopoulos said the following on 23-05-2004 07:45:
> > On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 17:14 +0200, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> > 
> >>I'd also like to point out that there were several efforts to 
> >>*standardise* our software selection procedure and come up with commonly 
> >>agreed upon *principles*, eg. 
> >><http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/index.php?pagename=WhatPackagesInLFS>. 
> >>Despite that everybody applauded and supported the effort, it seems that 
> >>it's just theory and the practice is that LFS will just include 
> >>everything which its development team wish to include.
> > 
> > The funny thing is, those 6 principles don't seem to argue for or
> > against either side of this debate...they are valid for both the current
> > version of the LFS and BE-LFS books.  Did I miss something?
> No, they were exactly intended this way - to provide common rules upon 
> which both sides can draw objective arguments from!
> If the principles are not adequate, then why attack them? Adjust them! 
> It's a wiki and I've invited everyone numerous time to tweak them. 
> Please do!
> -- 
> Groeten/Greetings,
> Jeroen Coumans
> {faq,website}@linuxfromscratch.org
> www.jeroencoumans.nl
> -- 
Who said they are not adequate?  Not I.  Did I attack them?  Certainly
not.  The only thing inadequate that I was attacking, was the argument
that udev/hotplug doesn't fit within the principals, and guidelines.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list