What next? [Was: Re: LiveCD or No LiveCD?]
theoldfellow at gmail.com
Tue Feb 26 10:37:50 PST 2008
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:49:06 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
> > couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
> > degrading the quality of LFS)
> > * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keeping it alive?
> Thank you all for your comments and consideration. I ran through the
> lists quickly this morning and came up with the following:
> 20 people expressed their appreciation for the CD, more than half voting
> to keep the project around. Also, several either offered to contribute
> or suggested ways in which the project may be improved.
> 2 people explicitly voted to drop the project.
> I could let this thread continue for some more time, but I get the
> impression that the ratio of votes will continue approximately the same.
> So the real question now becomes, where do we go from here? There have
> been a few suggestions put forward as to what may help future
> development and what will alleviate the original concerns brought up. I
> will try to lay down what I recall:
> * Go back to the drawing board, so to speak. Start a new CD from scratch
> that is minimal (and minimal means minimal, not just 'without X') and
> re-define core concepts that the CD will adhere closely to. (For
> example, as proof of the soundness of LFS, the CD should strictly adhere
> to LFS. If we adopt this one aspect, we should also be able to make use
> of ALFS development to produce the CD, instead of maintaining a full set
> of separate scripts.)
> * As has been suggested from a long time ago, make use of package
> management in the build process, especially for BLFS packages. This
> would allow at least two benefits: an easier development process, and
> greater extensibility/customization.
> * Add an LFS-style document to the project that teaches how to create a
> LiveCD from scratch.
> * Devise methods for users to more easily provide feedback and make it
> easier to contribute as a whole.
> What are your thoughts on the above? And are there any other
> suggestions, either new ones or ones that I missed?
I couldn't comment on the other thread as I never found the LiveCD
much use. After LFS 2.4, I always had a working platform anyway - LFS.
However, I think that this discussion needs to be opened out to:
1) Where should LFS go next ??
and after that:
2) How does BLFS respond to where LFS is going ??
and only then:
3) How should folk try it out or bootstrap the build system ??
For instance, if the answer to that included a package manager (for
which I would vote), then many of the difficulties of maintaining the
LiveCD go away.
I'm also very interested in the idea of a document that describes how
to build a Live CD using the LFS book as the base. This would be
interesting, even to die-hard UNIX techy's like what I aspire to be.
Gerard (who founded LFS sometime last millenium CE) hinted at having a
view on this; but until we see it, there isn't much point in
My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method, AND
have a Package Management system, AND have a defined way of managing
updates. THEN, I think ALFS and BLFS should use the chosen PM.
Everyone should go build a DIY-Linux, and a CLFS system before
deciding. Ditch your prejudices and have an experiment. (Please
forgive me for all the bruised toes and egos - or you can shout at me
if you want)
I am getting some time back (finished laying stone floor last week -
hands healing nicely thanks) now and might be cajoled into being
involved if the plans look stretching enough - but not for tinkering to
patch it up. Gee, it's been boring lately!
P.S. removed some but not all cross-post addys.
More information about the lfs-dev