> > I'd like to discuss the direction of LFS with respect to where upstream > developers appear to be going. > > Currently we use sysvinit and udev as the basis of bringing up LFS. We > do not use an initd/initramfs or systemd. > > http://wiki.debian.org/InitrdReplacementOptions > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initrd >
+1 I'm with Nathan and Jeremy. As a long time LFSer, I would like to see us go towards having our readers create an initramfs (not the older initrd). The educational value is very high here. If we go this route, we should probably update the kernel compilation instructions to help users go more module driven kernels than static. I have been module only with initrd for some time out on my builds. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html > > -1 I don't think we are ready for this. I think that sysvinit is just fine for our needs. Many distros still go that way. I think the systemd devs have some good ideas, but its not for LFS IMO. ---------- > > There appears appears to be a movement to consolidate /bin and /usr/bin, > /lib and /usr/lib, and /sbin and /usr/sbin. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove > +1 I have been doing this since LFS 5 - LOL. I never understood the need. I install to / and symlink the /usr to /. I think Nathan and I started on the same version of LFS 3.3. Keep up the good work guys! -- James
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
