Dan Nicholson wrote: > We can call CLFS whatever we want, but by typical open source project > standards, it is definitely a fork.
I agree, that is why I've always referenced it as a fork. And as Dan says below, I don't consider that a bad thing. It simply is an accurate description. > I don't intend that as bashing in any way and admire what you guys > have done. Really. I agree with this as well. In fact, I've referenced CLFS while doing a multilib build a few months back. Though I only looked at it if something didn't work properly, or I had second thoughts about something. I wanted to learn the hard way, as unfortunately for me that usually is the only way to make the knowledge permanent. I too admire the work, as LFS didn't provide what CLFS brought to the table. And I'm in the camp with several recent posters that think the project would be better off as a whole if things could get straighted out and the projects somewhat merged. -- Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
