All: For what it's worth (been building LFS for a couple of years now and only very recently started posting to LFS-DEV as a way of "paying back"), I always thought that the educational goals of LFS were it's strongest points.
There is value in what you propose, however there will and should always be "the book" (or books) outlining the low-level grunt-work. I cannot tell you how many times working on other Linux distros that I actually pulled up the latest LFS or BLFS and stepped through to figure out what was really going on. Aaron On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:25 AM, George Makrydakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 28 February 2008 01:06:41 Gerard Beekmans wrote: > > What if LFS wasn't in book form anymore. What if it's an interactive > > program instead. A 100% merge of LFS, BLFS, ALFS, <any>LFS. > > This requires a glue point (book, and non book - form). You will have that. > But does your <any>LFS actually _exclude_ clfs, diy-linux and the "rest"? > > > [ ... ] > > > > Just some more food for thoughts. While we're discussing let's also take > > the time to think outside the box. Abandon, at least in theory, anything > > that is currently LFS, pre-conceived notions and otherwise, and see what > > happens when we re-invent LFS and the way we do things. > > In anyway, what would make this particular reinvention of LFS better than its > competition? > > You have some valid points there, expect to receive what you asked for, this > time... > > Things seem to be ripening around here, aren't they. But, it is one thing to > talk about these things though and an entirely different one implementing > them. > > > > > > G > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > -- Aaron K. Matsumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
