Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > The world is not a static place, especially the world of computing. Just > because we've done something a certain way for a long time and it > brought us successfully to this point doesn't mean that there is not now > a compelling reason to do it differently. Perhaps we chose this method > previously because there were no better alternatives at the time? I > think it's a mistake to say "LFS is done and only in maintenance mode" > because they way people use and interact with computers changes - even > in the Linux world. LFS needs more thought/energy and experimentation.
Jeremy, I think you overstate the issues. To me, LFS is a leading edge system, but not a bleeding edge system. On one hand we try to keep up to date with the current package releases, but we try to stay away from intermediate versions that lie in the respective version control systems. In some cases we are very proactive. We were one of the first to adopt the /run directory. Others use a sledgehammer like systemd when the value for most users is small. We resist those changes. Likewise, we resist making an initrd mandatory or having /usr mounted as a requirement for booting. Some of the 'advances' take away capabilities. I feel that we should continue to provide options for the users. I agree that the Linux wold needs thought/energy and experimentation, but it also needs a stable base from which to launch those new ideas. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
