{B,C}LFS State of Things (was Re: SVN-20070706: ...)

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Fri Jul 13 19:09:00 PDT 2007

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> This should not spark a flame war, you make a very concise and to the
> point statement/question that deserves discussion. However, the CLFS
> fork was mostly due to some dev's dissatisfaction with the decisions
> that were made a *long* time ago. It's my belief there is still
> animosity.
What animosity, CLFS is not a fork, we are a different form of LFS. If 
you consider us
running our own website and servers a fork, I guess we are one. But this 
was all
authorized by Gerard.
> I have thought about this many, many times. To the point of sending
> private emails to some of the CLFS devs/major users. *All* of them
> that I contacted have said that a merge or even an attempt at a merge
> of our (LFS/BLFS devs) efforts with the CLFS team would never work,
> or even be contemplated.
The one thing everyone has stated Randy, is our methodologies are 
different, LFS caters to
x86 processors, CLFS caters to more than just x86. Everything after the 
cross-tools, and tools
chapters are almost exactly the same. Except for the udev and 
bootscripts package.
> That said, for (B)LFS devs who weren't envited to join CLFS, they will
> never be able to, if what I've been told is true. Recently, I've
> been away from the project, some of it due to the fact that I'm using
> 64 bit arch's and my work on these platforms is now of no value to
> BLFS, nor am I able to contribute meaningfully to CLFS.
Randy, CLFS has an open door development policy. No one is limited. All 
you have do is
> Yes, I agree the (B)LFS days are limited. I've been trying to get
> the BLFS book somewhat up to date in the last couple of weeks, as I
> believe there's still a niche out there. x86 archs will be in use
> for some time to come in various capacities, especially in dedicated
> server use.
Randy I think your in the same boat as Ryan and myself are right now. We 
have been to busy
with our day jobs to keep up to date on changes required for the projects.
> You ask if there are "any plans to eventually begin work on CLFS when
> the time is right". Unfortunately, I don't believe it is an option at
> this point.
CLFS has offered it's services to help the LFS and BLFS teams numerous 
times, we have never been
given any tasks or have been asked to help.

I'm just disgusted you decided to bring up the past, that was all behind us.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list