On 08/16/2018 02:07 PM, William Harrington wrote:
Hello LFS,
We as CLFS are attempting to archive our site, but it may still be alive. We
use GIT and not subversion. Are you willing to house the historical (if it
dies) or keep up with LFS or include other arches other than x86 and AMD64?
Bruce, you probably have Justins' info, if not, contact me directly. It seems
we need to eventually merge these projects. The contributors of CLFS are too
busy and can't maintain it themselves. I propose that we merge CLFS into LFS
and have a greater user base which can keep it up to date.
I would also suggest that LFS move to GIT to make life easy. I do not talk for
all of CLFS, but just one or two people. LFS will need to deal with more than
two arches.
I do not have a problem with hosting CLFS data on the LFS web site, but
I do not want to make LFS or BLFS more complicated than it already is by
merging with CLFS.
If your contributors are too busy to maintain CLFS, we certainly do not
have the resources to do it. We are probably going to drop several
packages from BLFS after the next release just because we can't properly
support everything we have now.
We looked at git some time ago and did some tests, but we could not
retain the history of the project. I can see why CLFS wants to use it
because AFAIK, it is html only. We use the xml in several ways such as
being able to parse it daily to determine packages that are out of date.
When we use svn, there are really only a very few commands that we use:
checkout, update, diff, commit, and status are the primary ones. I just
don't see the advantages of git for our purposes.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
