Bootscripts merge? (Was: Summarize of Plan and changes)

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Sat May 27 15:00:08 PDT 2006

Jim Gifford wrote:
> Everytime someone brings up a proposal, people blow up.

Please stop with this "everybody" and "everytime" hyperbole, Jim.

> You can't make a guarantee that they won't get flamed for making a suggestion.

That, of course, depends on how sensible the suggestion is.  Actually, 
no it doesn't.  Folks *don't* get flamed on this list, as far as I can 
recall.  What may well happen is they receive constructive criticism 
based on the technical merits or otherwise of their proposal.  There is 
a big difference, IMNSHO.

> If we move things to neutral parties, this would be a compromise that 
> everyone will agree to, why not try to meet us half-way.

Because I don't think the proposed method of dealing with the rules is 
beneficial to the LFS book, relative to the current organisation.  I've 
already described how the books and bootscripts are handled (and it 
seems most agree that the current separation works well).  I don't see 
why udev rules need to follow a different process than the books and 


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list