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. Which frankly I'm tired of it. So at this
point Matt, I think we will agree to disagree.
The CLFS Udev rules were discussed in depth on the clfs-dev list,
Alexander went through every single line and checked everything, gave
his opinion, fixed things, etc. This was in January:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-January/055092.html
(that is just one of them that I found in a search)
So why objections to merging them or even starting with the CLFS rules?
If Alexander is to rule over them like Jeremy H and others mentioned,
then wouldn't it be logical to start with what he already has reviewed?
Just my opinion.
Justin
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
