Archaic wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 07:04:32AM +0100, Richard A Downing wrote: > >>I don't follow this. Isn't blfs-support the place for all beyond LFS >>support questions. It's not limited to BLFS packages, so why should >>there be a 'complete' lfs assumption. > > > Because the book assumes it and always has. Sometimes assumptions are > unavoidable in the interest of time management. >
I assume ( note ;-) that you use 'book' here to refer to the BLFS Book. My point is that BLFS-Support is NOT a 'BLFS Book' support list but a Beyond 'LFS Book' Support list. I have NEVER seen it written that there is a 'complete and unadulterated' LFS assumption in requesting support from the BLFS-Support list. If there is, then we need another list. Richard. #207 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
