Guys,
I just talked to Jim a bit ago to try and clear up the issues as of late
surrounding cross-lfs, what the status in general is, etc.
First off let me start to clarify that cross-lfs is not made part of LFS
officially in that it is integrated with the book and goes through the
regular Quality Assurance processes. True, it's in LFS' svn repository
but only because it's convenient for it to be there.
For all intents and purposes it might as well be running on Jim's
private machines while it is being developed and turned into something
usable that can be integrated with the LFS Book.
I know there was a bit of an issue, if not downright an outcry, when Jim
made some changes a few days ago that some of you took issue with due to
the lack of notification. Maybe it would have been nice if there was
some discussion and/or advance notification, but in the end that is
Jim's choice. When Cross-LFS gets to a point it becomes an official "LFS
product" (for lack of a better description right now), then things will
obviously change and no changes are to be made without discussion.
Then there was an issue the change made was unwise or wrong to make. You
know what guys, we all make changes sometimes that are later found to be
unwise. And yes, sometimes those could have been prevented with better
discussion and such. But come on, there is absolutely no excuse to start
attacking people on this list and accusing them of things.
Sometimes you just have to do what you think is right, even if nobody
seems to agree, or you know up front nobody will agree. If a change is
made and it's later found that it's better to undo it, we'll undo it.
It's simple enough to do. If people can't remain civil through that and
feel a need to resort to accusing one another of whatever, then maybe it
is time for those people to kindly unsubscribe from this list and leave
the rest of us alone.
As for the downright accusation that Jim stole research from somebody
else and did not give proper credit: nothing was stolen. Jim said (both
here on the list and to me directly when I spoke with him earlier) that
he looked at research of various people and didn't end up using
everything. If the path he chose is similar to somebody elses path that
does not mean anything was stolen. It merely means two people might have
arrived at the same conclusion of their own accord.
Lastly, as for development happening on IRC. It wasn't clear to me if
you guys were refering to the specific changes that were made as a
result of possible IRC discussions (which would explain the lack of
discussion here prior to said changes being made). If that is the case,
there was no discusion on IRC either. The change was thought to be a
no-brainer and was just made. If that judgement proves to be bad, just
undo the changes. There is, again, simply no need to get on various high
horses and start causing trouble.
In general, IRC isn't used (anymore) as a replacement for mailinglists.
In the past it did happen because everybody on this list contributed to
make this a hostile place to be. People came to IRC to report bugs
because they became afraid to be flamed or ridiculed here. I don't even
blame them for doing so. Development sort of migrated to IRC too for the
same reasons.
I myself am against main development happening on IRC rather than on the
mailing lists. For this to be changed, we as a group have to smarten up.
Only then will people feel comfortable again using this medium for
discussing and developing whatever it is we might be involved with at
any given time.
I hope this at least clears some of the issues up. If there are more
questions or concerns I will be more than happy to address them.
--
Gerard Beekmans
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
