On Thursday 28 February 2008 05:10:58 Gerard Beekmans wrote: > > Unless I misunderstood Gerard's proposal, that is what he is suggesting. > > Yes, that's in essence what I was saying. Although I don't think it > possible to truly merge everything LFS-related project into one single > project. > > > We don't have (seemingly) the manpower and community interest any more > > to keep the current structure in place. I think the projects would have > > to be merged in order to continue. > > I believe the drop in interest is party because of it's been too much of > the same-old same-old for too long. People get bored. It's time to think > of something new to keep energy and interest levels up. > > >> Isn't it a weakness in the social structure of LFS that it could not > >> hold these resources together? Educational use is no excuse imvho. > > > > Very probably. And part of the issue, I think, has always been that > > different people see LFS from different viewpoints. This will always be > > the case to a certain extent, but perhaps, with a redesigned project, > > the potential for social problems can be taken into consideration as > > part of the re-design. > > Simply put, part of the problem is that people get bored if there isn't > enough change within a project. This isn't an LFS community social > structure; it's human nature. You can only be in maintenance mode for > that long before people move on.
People get bored of strife more easily than maintenance mode. Strife forces prolonged maintenance mode. Strife is part of human nature, and it is a social problem. Therefore the two can be coexisting and unrelated as well. > >> front. Package management is not going to help saving, if at all, > >> anything. > > > > How it will be different is something that will have to be discussed. > > Package management isn't meant to save the project. It's just one of > many improvements we can consider merging into the main project rather > than leaving it up to a project like ALFS to take care of. > Let's play devil's advocate and examine a plausible scenario: Actually, package management inside this project is the only way to "hurt" the other contenders short - term, so that people come back from where they are from. But, i do believe that it is a bad way to solve this, despite package management should have been a priority eons ago. As I replied before elsewhere in this thread, there is to be an odd alternative. Perhaps this time things go differently since everything is just "different". > Gerard George -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
