On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 04:43:30PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote: > > I see to many conflicts of interest. I see a lot of ALFS stuff getting > merged into the LFS book, with no real discussion.
jhalfs was discussed in dozens of threads a long time ago. What you are arguing against is a method to test the book directly from it's XML. That is extremely powerful. And if it is the MD5s you don't like, I cannot understand that, either. It is common (and recommended) practice to verify checksums. I would hope before any md5 is added to the book that the dev who is adding it has checked it against the upstream checksum file (if it exists). But many upstream packages don't have md5's. For that reason alone, I think the book should have them. The rest are for convenience. > If I'm missing the point of what's going on, somebody give me a clue. I > know I haven't done a lot of work in LFS lately, but today since I had > some free time, I ventured out and looked at the outstanding tickets, > and this is how I felt after looking at them. Perhaps you should visit more often. ;) There have been a few udev rules threads that I'd appreciate your comments on, too. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
