Gerard Beekmans wrote:
Hi guys,
The idea of setting up a new group that will take on the task of
handling matters like the udev discussion that is currently going on
strong. This idea had some support on this list, and some resistance,
and the discussion dropped off without much happening on this front.
In my view it was a good thing that discussion petered out as it had no
merit
I believe the idea is actually a good one. If you look at the bigger
picture, such a unbiased group can take on other tasks too down the
road. Soon we'll have to figure out how we want to move forward with
linux-libc-headers. Do we start our own, or do we wait for other
projects to take this on. Just like with udev now, LFS and CLFS will
likely end up with different requirements to make everything compile
properly. The last thing we want is a repeat of this udev issue.
The kernel headers issue will change when David Woodhouses changes get
merged in the 2.6.18 kernel. If that doesn't pan out then Jims headers
would make an excellent alternative. That's a discussion we should have
after the next stable book is released.
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.
So what you're saying is that the current LFS editors are incompetent so
lets get new people in?
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
