Matthew Burgess wrote:
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.
What I can't understand is why, when the CLFS rules have been working
for months, that LFS had to reinvent the wheel?
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
