I have poked my head in from time to time so some of you may have seen
my name once or twice. I have built LFS a few times now and must say it
has been one of the most rewarding tasks I've ever completed. I've
learned a great deal about Linux and continue to do so each time I build
LFS.
I have definitely seen the occasional outbursts caused by differences in
the assorted projects. As an outsider, this is disheartening to see. I
think the LFS project, and I consider all the subversions {B/H/C/A}LFS
to be a part of LFS, could do with some unity.
However, there are obvious complications. Technical issues aside, the
automatic build system could likely be incorporated into LFS easily as
far as content is concerned. BLFS is merely an extension project and
adding it on merely adds to the complication of having a potentially
overly-large project. That being said, I strongly dislike them being
separate since LFS is like baking a cake without any icing. You need
BLFS icing to finish the darn cake! BLFS == LFS Part 2.
Hardened would be, I think, the most difficult part to add simply
because convolutes what LFS is trying to make clear and
straight-forward. As a stand-alone project it appeals to a much smaller
audience and its segregation makes it look unapproachable. Creating a
safe and secure "distribution" would add the extra-added spice to making
LFS a good desktop choice rather than just a learning tool.
Last, is the project that seems to cause the most friction in this
community. As many have already stated, LFS is basically moving in the
same direction as far as the tool-chain goes in order to support 64bit
systems. While I know very little of the history, and have not read
CLFS, it is likely to be the easiest to merge if we can resolve what
seems to be the theoretical differences between the projects. I worry
that perhaps it is ego's, rather than technical merit, that prevents
that from happening. CLFS and LFS are nearly identical except for how
packages are built. They achieve the exact same end using different means.
I look forward to seeing the community unite and make itself stronger!
xLFS has been an excellent source for me and anything that makes it
stronger makes life better for my next build!
Happy holidays to all!
Rob
Robert Connolly wrote:
> LFS was sparked in the day of 32bit x86, and now 64bit is becoming popular,
> and LFS is finding itself supporting multiple architectures. ALFS is trying
> to make things easier with automation. HLFS has some add-ons. CLFS wants to
> support Sparc, Macintosh, and other architectures, and I think everyone else
> does too. BLFS is BLFS. It's a shame we can't all come to a common agreement
> for book and system design. We're a small group with a common goal to build a
> Linux from scratch... to take control of what is normally called
> a "distribution". This includes Greg's DIY Linux, who has done excellent work
> for our community.
>
> We're short on leadership... someone who can define a compromise and reunite
> the forked projects. Efforts to discuss this sort of thing have typically
> failed, with a resolution to maintain sovereignty in each project.
>
> I'm not experienced with diplomacy or leadership, but I know the ass end of
> it. I think our compeditor projects (outsiders) do not have our issues
> because $profit is the main goal, while our goals are really undefined. So we
> have a small community with undefined goals, and this is doomed to failure,
> yet maintained by love for what we are doing (albeit separately).
>
> At this moment, I do not have an answer, but I ask for suggestions on how we
> can reunite, how we can move foreward together, instead of apart. I hope we
> can all agree that all the projects should be the same book, although making
> this usable for the reader, and developers, is a different story. I,
> personally, dismissed php because I don't have the time to learn how to write
> it. Same story with rpm scripts. I just want to give command lines and
> explain why, not explain it in different languages.
>
> I think everyone would be happier if we all worked on the same book, if we
> could just find a friggen way to do it.
>
> LFS will not fall as long as her people develop it. That that which is born
> still lives and can not be buried in the cold earth, but only waits to be
> born again. We will be the light when all other light has faded. (Drunken
> ramble).
>
> Happy holidays.
>
> robert
>
> On Wednesday December 24 2008 01:01:50 pm Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Greg Schafer <gscha...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> If the LFS project had any kind of leadership with any kind of backbone,
>>> there'd be serious consequences for this kind of divisive behavior.
>>>
>> While I agree with your sentiments about Cross LFS creating a native
>> book, what could the LFS leaders really do? CLFS forked a long time
>> ago. Nobody can tell them what they can and can't do. That ship has
>> sailed.
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>>
>
>
>
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
