2 New LFS Editors
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 20:16:29 PDT 2008
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> As those of you who have been following ticket #2205 have already seen, DJ & Randy
> Congrats guys! I wouldn't say I've been monitoring LFS in the past few
> months, but now and then I'd look around to see what's going on and it's
> nice to see that there's still some bit of fighting breath in it. :)
> On a personal level I've been very busy (moving, managing my new
> company, there's been a lot going on). But things are starting to even
> up a bit and I'm beginning to get my priorities in place.
> I have a few cycles to spare for helping, I believe, but I don't want to
> just jump in anywhere. And I don't really want to work on ideas or
> concepts that aren't really going to go anywhere or will be stepping on
> other people's toes.
> So I guess I'm asking is (while trying to avoid raising a long, tired,
> pointless discussion about where LFS could and should go): what's our
> current goal and what needs done?
To me, I'd like to see two things. First, an update to the packages. This is
relatively straight forward, but of course has a lot of detail.
Second, I'd like to see a new page on how we are addressing building LFS as a
64-bit system. Then add a section to each page that needs it any special 64-bit
Then a 6.4 or 7.0 release would be appropriate.
After that, we can address package management. In the past there has been a
fair amount of discussion about that, but we need to come to a decision on how
to address it.
Another item of interest is LSB conformance. Again, this would start as a page
up front to describe what it is and why one might want to do it. It would be
followed up by sections in individual package sections as necessary. Of course
a bare LFS system would not be LSB compliant, but would need to be followed up
in BLFS to get a complete system.
More information about the lfs-dev