On 5/23/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
> To just make sure we all have a clear understanding.
>
> 1 - Repo will be created for Bootscripts and Udev rules
> 2 - Repo to be maintained by DJ, Alex, and Dan ( my choices). With the
> Dev Teams from BLFS, CLFS, and LFS.
> 3 - Trunk to be maintained by DJ, Alex, and Dan.
> CLFS Branch to be maintained by CLFS Dev Team
> LFS Branch to be maintained by LFS Dev Team
> BLFS Branch to be maintained by BLFS Dev TEAM
> 4 - DJ, Alex, and Dan get final-say of what gets released and what gets
> pulled from the BLFS, CLFS, and LFS branches
> 5 - Bootscripts and Udev Rules will need their own Trac to log bugs to
>
> The only outstanding issue is the UID's/GID's, which we are the process
> of making a change in CLFS to maintain the same list as LFS, but with
> notes about the additional users.
Please don't omit BLFS from the equation.
> Is this acceptable to all.
+1, assuming the following:
1) At least one of DJ and Dan agrees.
I'll be glad to help out as a moderator, but kernel/drivers/udev is
not my strong suit. I can help make sure the commits get in,
compromises are reached, etc.
2) This proposal gets implemented shortly after 2006-06-02.
This also works for me. Project at work should be wrapping up first
week of June.
3) The "contrib" directory for unofficial stuff (like the persistent CD symlinks
from Debian) is allowed.
I like this idea for both symlinks approaches. While it makes sense
why the udev team doesn't want to use Jim's style of CD symlinks, the
fact is that some people do just want a simple enumeration and don't
care about persistence. contrib is a good spot for these.
4) Some form of documentation notes for BLFS is agreed upon (e.g., how to keep
proposed rules for group membership that are not part of base LFS installation,
e.g., "audio").
This is also good.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
