Jim Gifford wrote:
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.
Well, in which case, what *you* should have done is come to LFS when you originally created the udev tarball and said "look guys, this works well for us, have you considered a similar approach. I think this is a good idea because...". Instead you just stayed in your own little playground not bothering to consider that your stuff might be useful to LFS. Now that LFS has adopted a similar scheme, all of a sudden you're saying it's LFS that's not cooperating. I still think, from an organisational perspective, the rules belong in the LFS repository and that CLFS should add to those rules, either like BLFS does via 'cat'ting to additional files, or by providing additional rules files. I doubt I can get you to understand this point though.
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
