Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Is this acceptable to all.
The bootscripts package and udev rules seem to me to be two separate
issues here, and at least until there's shown to be some benefit of
merging those two together, I'd prefer to keep them separate. So far,
most seem agr
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 05/26/06 20:03 CST:
> So, there are my thoughts. :-)
And some mighty-fine ones, at that.
I'm fairly certain that BLFS bootscripts will never be merged, unless
the entire team has privvy to update, and that the bootscript tarball
is auto-generated.
Of course, we'll
Bootscripts need to be wide open, but with DJ coordinating the releases
and bug fixing. But as far as BLFS bootscripts go, they are in the repo
to keep a unified bootscripts package, which can be maintained by BLFS,
just in this new repo. As far as LFS and CLFS goes though, it will
probably be
Hello,
we recently had a person asking for support on the livecd list, where it became
evident that the problems were caused by the fact that he used inexact French
translation: http://www.fr.linuxfromscratch.org/view/lfs-6.1.1-fr/
Yes, I know that this translation is not explicitly mentioned
On 5/26/06, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am fine with merging the bootscripts if the community wants it. That
is conditional on the ability to create an auto generated tarball (not a
big deal). Also, the editors must have access to their respective
directories under the bootscripts re
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
IMO, the best solution is the one suggested by Matt. LFS should
contain the udev rules and bootscripts for LFS. All dependent projects
should work off that base and release their own additions (or
deletions in form of patches) - similar to how the bootscripts are
currently
On 5/26/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
So what your saying is nothing should change, LFS and CLFS should have
their own rules and bootscripts.
No there should not be any duplication. LFS would have the base udev
rules and bootscripts. CLFS, HLFS and BLFS would add to it with their
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
No there should not be any duplication. LFS would have the base udev
rules and bootscripts. CLFS, HLFS and BLFS would add to it with their
unique modifications. The approach has worked nicely for the
bootscripts, the same would work for udev rules.
I totally disagree, the
