Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 01/05/06 10:20 CST: > But as Jeremy said just before one minute,i think it makes sence to > re-evaluate how (atleast) BLFS is structured and organized in general.
Very well. But could anyone be more precise as to what "structured and organized in general" is. Perhaps some suggestions what the book should migrate into? Man, right now I'd say the BLFS is kept up very well. Most packages are *very* current. The ones that aren't, are because 1) there are no recent updates (which means the package *is* current or 2) there is no Editor interest in that package. So, to me, why does the "structure and organization" need to be evaluated. I would agree if BLFS was lagging behind in stuff, but it isn't. As far as packages that have no Editor (and community, for that matter) interest, there has been precedent to remove it. Note the Courier package, you don't see it in BLFS any longer. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 10:20:02 up 102 days, 19:44, 3 users, load average: 1.44, 1.30, 0.91 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
