I agree with those statements, Craig. Every now and then the old past still rears its ugly head. A few things happened that hurt a number of people (professional and personal pride) and those things are typically hard to get over.
I, too, have always thought it to be a good idea to merge CLFS with the rest of LFS in some way. The CLFS "fork," as some call it, will hopefully come to an end. It's not exactly a true fork (at least IMO, which isn't shared by everybody) and I don't think it will be impossible to put an end to it, when the time is right. It'll probably upset a few more people in the merger, but hopefully it can be done with everybody agreeing that it's a logical next thing to do for LFS. A few people have already expressed the fact that platforms like x86_64 are becoming more and more standard. We simply have to keep up with the times. Adopting some/all of CLFS' methods into mainstream LFS will happen sooner or later. Back in the day, LFS' chapter 5 made allowances for systems based on a (very) old Glibc that wasn't compatible with the newer Glibc LFS was installing. Along that same vein sooner or later we'll have to add similar workarounds if one wants to end up with a 64 bit build. Or it will end up in an LFS Hint. Or we'll defer completely to CLFS. At any rate, you can see the trend developing. One day we'll get over this hump and put all of this behind. But first are summer holidays. I imagine lots of us will be gone (myself included starting end of next week) so this probably isn't the right time to start an in-depth discussion with people not paying attention anymore or entire gone. I'll leave it at that before this becomes a lengthy "brain dump." Comments always welcome of course -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
