On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything > > other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other > > architectures. > > Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't know of any LFS or BLFS > developers that think non-x86 is unsupportable. We have chosen to keep > those books x86 only due to the personal preferences, the hardware > available to them, and a preference of wanting to use the simplest > instructions possible without IF $arch == 'x' constructs. We have no > problems with pointing people to CLFS when it is appropriate. > > -- Bruce
If I summarised unfairly, I apologise. Would you prefer "is unsupportable by most of the LFS/BLFS editors" ? This is in the sense of "not able to be supported", NOT one of the meanings which drift towards 'indefensible'. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
