Chris Staub wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/30/06 11:56 CST:
>>
>> I know I said no more replies. But this is important. Jim, you just
>> made my point for me. If these "consolidated" bootscripts need to be
>> updated, what is the point in consolidating them?
>>
>> What text will be in the LFS book. "Here is the current LFS tarball
>> to install after you complete LFS. It also has BLFS bootscripts in
>> it, but they probably aren't current, so you'll need to get a
>> different tarball for BLFS." :-(
>>
>> That is what we have now, two different tarballs.
>>
>
> Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, though more because of potential user
> confusion rather than technical issues. I agree that BLFS bootscripts
> should be separate.
As nice as it would be to have one tarball, and as unreal as that
scenario seems, the possibility still does exist, I have to agree that
the blfs bootscripts should remain seperate from the base bootscripts.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
