On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:26:37PM -0700, Justin R. Knierim wrote: > > 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?
No, it wasn't logical. What was logical was to take a fresh look at things. Udev has been a fast moving target. The rules need refreshed as we go along. For instance, NAME="%k" is no longer needed. A second thing was new concepts that were seemingly not present when LFS/CLFS rules were written, like using SUBSYSTEM more heavily so we don't have to enumerate every device known to man. Those were the things I was working on, and Alex oversaw, so the logical thing was to start with LFS because it had less than CLFS, then move on to CLFS, incorporate all the changes and make a tarball. When I posted the differences (both to the current LFS and CLFS rules) I wasn't thinking LFS/CLFS. I was thinking unification with a set of rules different than either had. Things were borrowed from the various distros, including LFS and CLFS so this was to be a new thing not centered on either LFS/CLFS. But I never got a usable response in that thread other than * matches nothing and anything (which I didn't know). This isn't about "My book's rules are better than your book's", but some have made it that way. Bottom line is that each book's rules should be confronted, but neither of them should be the base for the new rules because they both do inefficient things. -- 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
