Unifying the Udev Rules Packages

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed May 24 10:43:27 PDT 2006


Jim Gifford wrote:
> Matt,
>    I did respond, but you chose to ignore it.
> 
> http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057282.html 
> 
No, I didn't ignore it.  I saw that you said "the rules are not that 
different".  At which point I was left scratching my head as to why you 
are not prepared to simply drop the rules that are in CLFS that 
duplicate what is in LFS rather than create all this work for yourself.

Yes, I am sorry that coordination didn't happen before now.  But that 
works both ways, Jim.  LFS shouldn't have created its udev-config stuff 
without first consulting CLFS as to whether the package could be 
migrated across to LFS.  Neither should CLFS have created its udev rules 
tarball without first considering that it was obviously useful to LFS as 
well and therefore should have been developed in tandem with the LFS devs.

Both parties are equally to blame, IMO.  I wanted to move on from those 
past mistakes and outlined a proposal at 
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057266.html. 
  You responded saying that you still think its the "LFS way or no way", 
but I'm yet to hear any concrete disadvantages (be they technical or 
organisational) to my proposal.

Regards,

Matt.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list