Matthew Burgess wrote:
So, what are the drawbacks to this approach? Why won't it work?
My comments below are concerning udev *only*. As I've said, to me, the bootscripts are a separate issue.
What you suggested is the approach that LFS has assumed up to now and CLFS has rejected. If I'm viewing things correctly, the reason this approach fails is because developers on both sides have been attempting to find a solution to the new udev assuming that they're going about it in the correct fashion. Having a separate udev repo and developer helps to keep the focus on what is technically correct and practical for all end users, and drops any hurt feelings/contention there's been up to now. Alexander makes a prime candidate because he *is* neutral and because he already understands the process so well.
What you have described, Matt, has been tried and has failed. While, to me, it sounds fine and like it should work, I've no faith that it would in a practical sense.
-- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
