Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Jeremy's request is reasonable, Jim. I don't think there was ever any > thought > of not giving proper attribution to either Greg or CLFS. > > Please give us a break here. The changes are reasonably large and everything > wasn't perfect on the first commit. All this will get sorted out pretty > quickly. > > Personally, I'd really hope that the approach would be something like "Hey > guys, > you forgot...", or "X really isn't right. It should be..." > > There is nothing wrong with making mistakes. Please don't suggest unethical > personal motivations unless an editor is unresponsive to polite suggestions. > > I look forward to any contributions you or Greg can make. Together we can > make > a large step forward. > > One last note. I see that you still have LFS commit privileges. If you > want, I > see no problem with you making commits directly. > > -- Bruce > Bruce, my belief is treat people how they have treated you, several times CLFS was accused of not providing attribution to LFS and BLFS, the shoe is on the other foot now. Yes I do hold a grudge on this, and when we were first notified in CLFS, we hurried up and add the licenses of LFS and BLFS to the appropriate sections, I believe we had it down within an hour. But again, if we are sister projects this should of not been a big deal, but it was. Enough on that subject, because I could go on and on.
As far as LFS Dev privs, thanx but no thanx. You can delete them, not to mention, someone changed by password on me a while back, because they were afraid when CLFS moved away to it's own servers. I have no interest in LFS goals, except to help out with any issues that my expertise can be useful. I stepped away from the whole LFS/CLFS thing for over a year, I'm just getting back into the swing of things again, and I have my mind straight ahead on working on the CLFS subproject, specifically embedded systems and cross compiling only. I was just surprised to come back and the same old issues come up again and again. But again, the CLFS team model is different from LFS and that may be the reason CLFS is moving forward. I will just state this because people are going to read more into what I'm saying not knowing what I'm actually thinking. CLFS is a subproject of LFS. CLFS does have a separate leadership, Ryan, Joe, and myself. CLFS is not fork. CLFS does have developers that work exclusively on CLFS projects. CLFS does have it's own servers. CLFS does use a different license. CLFS was originally intended to be the future of LFS, not necessarily the cross-compiling, but pulling the updates required by new releases of the toolchain. As it has been stated, CLFS can be easily be modified make a LFS style book with no cross compiling. Will CLFS teams merge with LFS, only time will tell. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
