Qrux wrote: > I assume LFS is often not used -as is-, unless it's being run > console-only (which is usable, but seems like a harsh working > environment). I'm guessing that use-case is rare. I would also > guess most people either run it headless but connect via SSH, or run > it with X; the point being, LFS is likely to be used with something > else on top of it.
That's true, but it's each users call on what to add. I've also created some systems (servers) where I deleted some LFS packages, e.g. gcc, auto*, because they were not needed. > It has "consumers". And, I'm figuring each > release comes with some assurance that it works...Obviously it does > respect downstream; if it didn't, it wouldn't have users. But, it's > also clear there's nothing formal. We do not have enough developers to make things formal. Sure, we could create some kind of CMMI, but the value added would really be small and not worth the effort. > Can you elaborate on what the current process is for accepting a RC? Matt and I make a judgment call. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
