Some ideas about LFS project
wwh04660 at ucmo.edu
wwh04660 at ucmo.edu
Mon Sep 22 23:10:33 PDT 2008
On Sep 22, 2008, at 10:27 PM, Roebe XXX wrote:
> I do sometimes feel as if the LFS project seems to hibernate for a
> really long time, with hardly any changes whatsoever.
> I also admit freely that I find the LFS process is too slow.
> Maybe I am too impatient as well but I think the process should be
> extremely easy, streamlined - and fun. It was fun and interesting
> for the first time when I did it but now it seems more tedious, even
> though the process has improved over time. The whole procedure is
> sometimes error prone.
> Maybe it can be simplified so that errors are less likely to
> happen. And releases be made faster or more "daily"I am speculating
> and wishing here :)
> You see, if both LFS and BLFS are delayed a lot, there is no reason
> to keep them that separate. BLFS would probably lag much more behind
> than LFS, but sometimes I really think the whole LFS project
> grinded to a halt which is not necessary. People who like LFS
> will not bother much if information is changed quickly.
> And if something made LFS unusable these bug reports WOULD SO QUICKLY
> trickle in if the project is alive and healthy.
> I simply think the focus on ultra-stability for LFS is not that
> Or should not be so important.
One day when you find out that a GNU/Linux changes from day to day you
might appreciate people who decide that a stable stage needs to take
place. You are impatient. Impatient for what, I have no idea, but the
GNU/Linux system moves faster and unstable than it is stable. If you
have been around before linux 2.4 days you'd even see it more
prevalent. You are a dreamer. Sure dreams are great to have. Latest
isn't greatest. Latest can break a lot of things. The fact that x86
hardware changes faster than GNU/Linux can keep is another factor. LFS
and BLFS is for sure cause we can't keep up, it is also and foremost
the fact that GNU/Linux and x86 and now x86_64 are moving faster than
anyone can keep up with. You only see one view, and there are more out
there which you haven't even seen, yet. Maybe you will. The LFS team
has families and more things going on in life than developing LFS.
That's why LFS isn't even in the x86_64 realm yet. Your comments are
taken with sincerity, and this is how it is going to be till LFS devs
can take on the tremendous burden that GNU/Linux promotes. It's a mess
as far as I'm concerned. Considering x86_64 has been around since 2005
or before.... someone here is lacking. maybe yell out for a "wake the
hell up!" People say they want to do things, yet they don't. LFS is
dead as far as I'm concerned. Gerard, where are you in this project?
Haven't seen jack from you in a long time. Are you still involved?
More information about the lfs-dev