Ken Moffat wrote: > I'm flattered, but disconcerted - aren't all editors supposed to > take a balanced view ?
Yes, they are. And I think for the most part they have. What I really meant was, from my perspective, you seem to have managed to keep yourself separate from the social issues, which is a good thing. > In the interests of "full disclosure" (one > of my buzzwords because I don't think "our" (LFS, BLFS, clfs) > security is "up to scratch" I need to disclose that I perhaps still > bear you (JH) a tiny amount of scepticism - you pulled me in to this, > for which I'm grateful, but then you put ppc64 into clfs, only to > lose your access to the hardware - making that work on the desktop > has taken far more time (basically, a huge chunk each time gcc had a > version upgrade) than I ever wished to use, and then there was the > teaser of the jh LFS book - yes, it worked, but it withered on the > vine. So, I recognize your past contributions, and your good intent, > but I'm not yet convinced that this will be a productive use of my > time. You have hit on what is perhaps my single biggest shortcoming in connection with LFS: I leave things unfinished. It's bad because it ends up affecting others, and I'm very sorry for that. I guess I put ppc64 out of my mind after I lost the hardware, Ken, and I'm sorry that it affected you in that way. I almost wish then, that it had been removed from the book after that point. (As an aside, what the jh branch was is now in trunk, with the added support of methods from DIY. PowerPC should actually work in LFS, although I have not tested it recently, with the exception of a boot loader. I know it was slow, but the work there did actually make it back to trunk.) In any case, you'll notice that I did not include myself in the list of proposed names. To what extent it is true, I do not know for sure, but I feel somewhat responsible for the fragmentation of LFS. I would like to help fix it somehow, but I get a feeling that one of the best ways I can help is to step back and let others step in. I'm not proposing to leave entirely, because I don't want to continue in the trend of irresponsibility, and to whatever extent I am still needed or wanted, I am glad to help out. But I think this discussion needs to happen, and it would probably be better off without me. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
