Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt,
I did respond, but you chose to ignore it.
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057282.html
No, I didn't ignore it. I saw that you said "the rules are not that
different". At which point I was left scratching my head as to why you
are not prepared to simply drop the rules that are in CLFS that
duplicate what is in LFS rather than create all this work for yourself.
Yes, I am sorry that coordination didn't happen before now. But that
works both ways, Jim. LFS shouldn't have created its udev-config stuff
without first consulting CLFS as to whether the package could be
migrated across to LFS. Neither should CLFS have created its udev rules
tarball without first considering that it was obviously useful to LFS as
well and therefore should have been developed in tandem with the LFS devs.
Both parties are equally to blame, IMO. I wanted to move on from those
past mistakes and outlined a proposal at
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057266.html.
You responded saying that you still think its the "LFS way or no way",
but I'm yet to hear any concrete disadvantages (be they technical or
organisational) to my proposal.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
