Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
I would like at this time to propose that we create a separate project
for Cross-LFS, like ALFS, HLFS and BLFS. There are many reasons for
wanting to do so:
Agreed in priniciple
Me too. It's nearly its own project now as it is.
I'd rather see this investigation instigated from the Cross-LFS side of
things to be honest. You can't expect all of lfs-dev to subscribe to
cross-lfs-dev (or whatever), and therefore I'll go out on a limb and say
it would be fairer if cross-lfs devs post any potential issues with LFS'
toolchain/build process to lfs-dev. We'll then of course endeavour to
investigate the problem to see if it does indeed affect us, and if
cross-lfs can reduce things down to a minimal testcase that demonstrates
the problem, so much the better.
That seems to be the natural course to follow. I would like to see some
of the goals/guiding principles of Cross-LFS layed out, too though. For
example, how closely does it follow LFS and decisions made there, like
package versions, etc?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
