Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Face it LFS and CLFS both don't want to give up what we currently
have, and _/* The CLFS team is trying to compromise*/_ with this
proposal, but like normal it's the LFS way or no way.
If I knew what we were compromising on, Jim, it'd be a hell of a lot
easier. Tell me what it is that you think is wrong with the current
LFS rules (in terms of the names and/or permissions) and I'll see
whether I agree with you or not.
Matt, the bottom line is that the rules are not that different. Archaic
has proven that and I've said that. There are a few permissions differences.
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057222.html
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057142.html
So the bottom line is Matt, the LFS package should of never been
created. But co-operation with CLFS and a unified package could of been
born instead of us fighting. Which frankly I'm tired of it. So at this
point Matt, I think we will agree to disagree.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
