On 5/18/12 11:37 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 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.
To produce a leading edge system, you need to do some bleeding edge work. How that process leads to stability is a matter of organization and development, but in my experience, LFS (as it is today) shies away from any experimentation unless the larger distros are implementing some new standard. > 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. I agree with all these points, but being stable and re-thinking/experimenting are not mutually exclusive. Again, it's a matter of process and organization. But the typical behavior I've seen is to nay-say new ideas because it does not fit in with the tradition and the expectation of what the current-stable book is, instead of encouraging a platform for new ideas and experimentation. Perhaps this stems from the assumption that there are too few hands to do the work involved to develop and support - but chasing away ideas also chases away the hands to do the work. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
