An idea for a new development model

[Alan Lord]

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/15/07 07:20 CST:
> 
>> I would love to see some sort of proper support for PM go into LFS, but 
>> that all depends on the community...
> 
> I'll go on record as -1.
> 
> I feel we should mention it, provide links to the various alternatives,
> and drive on. We are not a distribution. We are a book that shows how
> to compile Linux from scratch. Let's don't forget that.

You are correct of course. As a reader/user of LFS/BLFS it has done 
exactly that. Provided a fantastic learning tool.

The unfortunate consequence of LFS is that it also teaches the user how 
great a lean/mean Linux system can be (and most would want it to stay 
that way if it *was* a distribution). I would hazard a guess that most 
people who grok LFS would love to use it for their everyday distro. 
Unfortunately it is beyond my skills (and available time) to be able to 
continue using LFS for the PITA upgrade/maintenance issue.

> 
> Package management is beyond the scope of showing how to compile
> packages (and which packages to compile).
> 

Perhaps therefore, making the LFS PM friendly and then having a separate 
project which would develop and provide on-going maintenance tools would 
be a way to look at this... It too would also be a "learning" tool 
demonstrating [perhaps] such things scripting or system admin skills 
that would enable the whole LFS project to grow.

I feel that this is why the core contributory community of LFS remains 
quite small and a large proportion of it transient. Once the "learning" 
is done we hit a metaphorical brick wall of how to maintain our system.

If I could maintain mine I would not be using Ubuntu

Al