Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 05/30/06 10:42 CST: > The bootscripts were brought up as well as something this new group > could take on. The udev problem we're trying to fix is different than > the bootscript problem so people might have some issues with putting > both tasks in the same group. > > DJ and Nathan for bootscripts.
I am for everything you say, except the bootscripts. A BLFS bootscript is just as much a part of a package's instructions as any other part. BLFS editors need to be able to update/create bootscripts to do their job. BLFS bootscripts are different than the others. They are part of an individual package. The other bootscripts are all installed at once to the "system". Huge difference. As Tushar said, they were branched together once, but split up for various reasons, including the update cycles. Why have to relearn history? Nathan doesn't come around anymore. That leaves DJ to do the updates, if he's not around, the package become disfunctional. I cannot see one good reason to not have BLFS be able to update their own bootscripts. For instance, today I'll be adding a new package that has a bootscript. If DJ is on vacation or whatever, the package will not work. What good does this serve the community. BLFS bootscripts are different than the other groups (as explained). -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:09:01 up 18 days, 3:09, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
