Matthew Burgess wrote: > Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote: >> Well, that's that then. > > Indeed :-( Thanks to you and George for forwarding the news on. > > My own naive take on this is that Jim and co. should aim towards getting > the santizing script into a state suitable for review on LKML and have > it added to the kernel tarball, presumably with Makefile targets of > something like 'make userspace-headers' and 'make userspace-headers > install'. This would push maintenance of the script(s) over to those > who should have been doing it in the first place, and frees up our > resources for more LFS-specific tasks. Obviously, if Jim wants to > continue maintaining the scripts that's entirely up to him, but I firmly > believe that they should be in the kernel tarball.
I completely agree. The Kernel-Kiddies have done the dirty on the community by ducking their responsibilities on this. However, they may not accept it back. In which case you either go with a big (funded) distro, or have a Jim Gifford on your team. Having done some research on this, Jim's script (with all the help he's been getting on the lists and IRC) looks like the best bet. It's also the 'Right Way Forward' (tm), as it will deal with the increasing complexity of the Linux kernel. The trick will be making it work for all the arches. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
