On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 04:14:49PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Well, it's going to take a firm resolve and direction by those taking > the lead in the projects. You would have to have some sort of discussion > to attempt to bring efforts together. Here's a quick list to try: > > Gerard (if someone can wake him up...) > Matthew Burgess and Bruce Dubbs (representing LFS) > Randy McMurchy and DJ Lucas (representing BLFS) > Robert Connolly (representing HLFS) > George Boudreau (representing ALFS) > Jim Gifford, Ryan Oliver and Joe Ciccone (if CLFS is interested, which I > think is the hope) > > And a somewhat 'neutral' party. I would suggest either Ken Moffat or Dan > Nicholson, or perhaps both. These two have always (in my opinion) kept > to a very balanced view of things. > I've just logged in after updating yet another system to 2.6.28 ready for an appropriate gecko (firefox-2.0.0.19 in this case, I think - it's a rather old system). I mention that because my real interest is in a usable end-system (mostly, desktops - I try to keep my [64-bit] server going for a long time between rebuilds).
After biting my tongue, I was all set to reply to Matt's post (because I think he has broad shoulders, and because branches in svn are a PITA and what matters is what works - the clfs book does (at least, last time I checked) - as an editor there, it's too easy to break other architectures (I'm particularly hard on alpha because I don't always appreciate its differences)). Now that Jeremy has posted this, I'll reply here instead. I'm flattered, but disconcerted - aren't all editors supposed to take a balanced view ? In the interests of "full disclosure" (one of my buzzwords because I don't think "our" (LFS, BLFS, clfs) security is "up to scratch" I need to disclose that I perhaps still bear you (JH) a tiny amount of scepticism - you pulled me in to this, for which I'm grateful, but then you put ppc64 into clfs, only to lose your access to the hardware - making that work on the desktop has taken far more time (basically, a huge chunk each time gcc had a version upgrade) than I ever wished to use, and then there was the teaser of the jh LFS book - yes, it worked, but it withered on the vine. So, I recognize your past contributions, and your good intent, but I'm not yet convinced that this will be a productive use of my time. Fortunately, DJ and Randy dragged LFS kicking and screaming in to gcc-4.3 (as I probably should have realised, trying to fix gcc-4.2 on non-x86_32 was a wasted effort because none of the big distros were using it). For me, the challenge now is to get BLFS up to date (although I can understand why Joe turned down commit rights). As for waking up Gerard, your guess is as good as mine about how to do it. Maybe he's skiing. In my opinion (and no, I'm not going to pretend any humility), the major problem with LFS has been the "x86_32 is good enough" views. I do not include Bruce (who has taken a sceptical view about 64-bits), because he has always given a reasoned view of why 64-bits may not be a good idea. When we had the lfs-hackers list, we could discuss other architectures as well as more bleeding-edge versions of the packages. Unfortunately, Gerard shut that down, and then when clfs moved to its own server there was a reluctance among s390 and ppc users to move to clfs. Perhaps we are *all* too exclusive, I don't know. I was going to say "feel free to flame away", but looking at previous contributions that is clearly unnecessary. So, "a very Merry Crimble to you all" and now, whether you will excuse me or not, I'll go back to updating my old systems (at least it's easier than messing with cmake and kde4 ! ;-) 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
