On Sun, Mar 02, at 07:08 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 03/02/08 04:52 CST:
>
> > And in my opinion, all the {H,C}LFS developers has to be BLFS developers
> > too, which sounds very reasonable.
>
> What you don't understand Ag, is that all the CLFS devs who I thought
> could help the BLFS project were asked to help, but all denied.
Understood but I also know that at least Joe offered his help if Blfs
will start to support multilib and other architectures. I just thing its
the right time to do it. Also this also applies for Robert from HLFS.
> Some said they wouldn't mind being set up for commit privs, but
> not to count on any help from them (Ken being an exception in that
> he said he would try to help out).
>
At least all the LFS developers should set up with commit privileges.
What would do with them its really up to them. I am sure they will help.
> I've always thought that there should be some reference to the project's
> home page for each of the BLFS packages. And for most we do, simply because
> the download URL for most of the packages contain a reference to the base
> URL. For those packages that the download URL is different than the
> package home page, then yes, a reference would be acceptable.
>
> But it seems if someone is going to spend that much time, that time
> would be spent wiser doing actual updates to the book instead of
> adding a minor enhancement that may not be of much use to anyone.
> However, if someone made a patch that included some home page URLs
> (first a format would have to be determined how we want to do it),
> it wouldn't be turned down.
>
Maybe the first item in the Package information section, above to Download
url.
--
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/Hacking
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
