What next?

George Makrydakis george at obsethryl.eu
Thu Feb 28 05:04:29 PST 2008


On Thursday 28 February 2008 05:10:58 Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> > Unless I misunderstood Gerard's proposal, that is what he is suggesting.
>
> Yes, that's in essence what I was saying. Although I don't think it
> possible to truly merge everything LFS-related project into one single
> project.
>
> > We don't have (seemingly) the manpower and community interest any more
> > to keep the current structure in place. I think the projects would have
> > to be merged in order to continue.
>
> I believe the drop in interest is party because of it's been too much of
> the same-old same-old for too long. People get bored. It's time to think
> of something new to keep energy and interest levels up.
>
> >> Isn't it a weakness in the social structure of LFS that it could not
> >> hold these resources together? Educational use is no excuse imvho.
> >
> > Very probably. And part of the issue, I think, has always been that
> > different people see LFS from different viewpoints. This will always be
> > the case to a certain extent, but perhaps, with a redesigned project,
> > the potential for social problems can be taken into consideration as
> > part of the re-design.
>
> Simply put, part of the problem is that people get bored if there isn't
> enough change within a project. This isn't an LFS community social
> structure; it's human nature. You can only be in maintenance mode for
> that long before people move on.

People get bored of strife more easily than maintenance mode. Strife forces 
prolonged maintenance mode. Strife is part of human nature, and it is a 
social problem. Therefore the two can be coexisting and unrelated as well.

> >> front. Package management is not going to help saving, if at all,
> >> anything.
> >
> > How it will be different is something that will have to be discussed.
>
> Package management isn't meant to save the project. It's just one of
> many improvements we can consider merging into the main project rather
> than leaving it up to a project like ALFS to take care of.
>
Let's play devil's advocate and examine a plausible scenario:

Actually, package management inside this project is the only way to "hurt" the 
other contenders short - term, so that people come back from where they are 
from. But, i do believe that it is a bad way to solve this, despite package 
management should have been a priority eons ago. As I replied before 
elsewhere in this thread, there is to be an odd alternative.


Perhaps this time things go differently since everything is just "different".

> Gerard


George



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list