On 02/04/2014 08:30 PM, Igor Živković wrote: > On 02/04/2014 08:23 PM, Armin K. wrote: >> On 02/04/2014 08:19 PM, Igor Živković wrote: >>> On 02/04/2014 08:03 PM, Armin K. wrote: >>>> >>>> "Now, in Unix system design, it is a generally understood principle that >>>> a big task not be handled by a big program, but rather a collection of >>>> small programs, each tackling one specific, well-defined component of >>>> the larger task. You often hear the phrase “do one thing, and do it >>>> well” as a guiding principle for writing a Unix program." >>>> >>>> While this was true long time ago, today it might not be. Especially for >>>> consumer programs. >>> >>> This is probably the reason for systemd animosity. Consumers can have >>> GNOME, systemd, PulseAudio and such, just don't take away the option not >>> to use it from the rest of us. >>> >> >> While I do fully agree with you, I do think that developers today >> support the "common use case". It's up to community to support anything >> else. Freedom of choice has two sides: User choice and developer choice >> and there's nothing that can really be done about that but complain or >> fix it yourself in a way that doesn't break the "official" setup. > > Absolutely. The way it's done in LFS project at the moment satisfies > both sides I think, as long as there is interest to maintain it. >
No, that's rather partially not true. While LFS does satisfy both sides, BLFS doesn't and rather can't. That's why we were rather forced to drop the software that depends on the "unsupported" thing rather than maintaining it "both ways" since it was said once that systemd and non-systemd instructions shouldn't be mixed. Using seperate branch and keeping up with Fernando is impossible however. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
