On Saturday 19 August 2006 06:59, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
> occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
> as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
> on at all any more within the LFS project.
Well, that is what I think, too. I have never been able to contribute
important things (because "cat /dev/brain >> LFS" results allways in
a "Unexpected End-Of-File" condition on my side) but I allways liked to
follow the project. Indeed, the last month, there were not really much
activity for what I had seen on the site. My opinions why that may be as it
is now, see below.
> ...
> I am really concerned about the health of the entire overall project.
> Recently there was a call for funds to replace the Belgarath server.
> Funds were raised in a matter of days. For all practical purposes,
> anyone who contributed money, wasted it.
I hope not!
> That call for funds (and the
> raising of it) was *many* months ago. There has been no effort to even
> explain where the donated money went (other than someone bought some
> hardware, and has it, but won't commit the couple of hours it would
> take to put it online).
Is there a new server?
>
> The entire LFS project seems to be in the toilet. Am I the only one
> that thinks this? Am I over reacting?
a) No, b) No, and c) is a No too. I think it has been the right time to ask
those questions and I'm sure there are many other who think the same
thoughts.
>
> Is there anyone else concerned about the health of the project?
We all should.
Well, allow me to add a sentence here. I now will go to bore you with *my*
thoughts about the LFS project at all. I allways thought that the *stable*
book is a special version of the book which may be taken for printing it to a
paper book at any time. The *development* book is somewhat what may get the
status of stable next time but still can be modified at any time. In this two
book versions, there is for the stable one no activity and for the second
some activitiy from time to time.
What I'm missing is the "be"-version we had years ago. This bleeding edge
version was where all the fun has been brought to us. From time to time, the
beLFS didnt work, had a lot of bugs, typos and all the stuff. But this is
where the life has been visible to all of us. I remember that there was a
discussion about stripping down the LFS project from three books to two and i
do not remember how i vote those days. But now, i think we should rollback.
Nowadays, it seems to me that there are several beLFS on many private
machines and may be some shared be a few people. I'd like to vote for bring
up the bleeding edge again - with a quite relaxed commit policy.
Why i do think that way? Because i feel that it is tried to have the
development book as stable as possible. Nothing wrong with it, but it lasts
sooo long until new versions like gcc-4.1.1 got implemented. Viewing that
from outside, it seems so that there is NO development when there is
gcc-4.1.1 out for months but the development book still uses older versions.
I took the gcc only for example - I hope you understand what i want to say.
Btw, what i also want to say is that everyone who is involved in the LFS
project does a great job!
It still makes fun to fool around with LFS - now trying the jhalfs (a nice
script!) and other stuff and i hope that the low we have actually in the
project is a temporary one!
No offense meant!
Cu
Thomas - aka Moody
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
http://mail.yahoo.de
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
