On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:37:17 -0400, George Boudreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There has been a lot of traffic talking about major changes to > LFS/CLFS/HLFS and I was waiting for the dust to settle before I went > back at jhalfs. I get the impression jhalfs could be relegated to the > dust bin if all the proposed changes are implemented. If there is still > some use for the code I will support the new books. I'd hate to think that changes to LFS would hinder the use/development of jhalfs in any way. I find the tool vital in order to detect issues with the LFS book's instructions (or, more accurately, my edits!) as it's the only way I know I can test the book's instructions exactly. When we come to discussing/implementing the way ahead for LFS' development (i.e. 64-bit support), I'd love for you to step in with your opinions on approaches that would be easier for jhalfs to support. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
