Bootscripts - Why combining is a bad thing

Jim Gifford lfs at
Tue May 30 09:56:42 PDT 2006

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
> Changing the thread so that the one topic, BLFS bootscripts, can be
> addressed independently from the other, good, ideas (in fact combining
> Udev rules may be bad as well).
> Scenario:
> LFS releases a book, perhaps in print, that says this is the bootscript
> tarball for this release. Let's call it bootscripts-1.2.3. This has
> LFS and BLFS scripts in it.
So this would be Release 1.2.3, All release in the 1.2.x series would 
have the same base + fixes
> Before BLFS releases their book to match the new LFS version, it is
> discovered that some of the bootscripts needed to be touched up, or
> a new one needs to be added.
This could be Release, nothing says that CLFS, LFS, and BLFS 
will be using the same releases, but all the same series would be able 
to operate with each other.
> How does LFS update their finished, released, perhaps in print, book
> to reflect that a new tarball is needed?
They don't need to Version 1.2.3 has their base, unless same errata is 
fixed in, then yes it would get updated.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list