On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:49:06 -0500 Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a > > couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is > > degrading the quality of LFS) > > > > * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keeping it alive? > > Thank you all for your comments and consideration. I ran through the > lists quickly this morning and came up with the following: > > 20 people expressed their appreciation for the CD, more than half voting > to keep the project around. Also, several either offered to contribute > or suggested ways in which the project may be improved. > > 2 people explicitly voted to drop the project. > > I could let this thread continue for some more time, but I get the > impression that the ratio of votes will continue approximately the same. > > So the real question now becomes, where do we go from here? There have > been a few suggestions put forward as to what may help future > development and what will alleviate the original concerns brought up. I > will try to lay down what I recall: > > * Go back to the drawing board, so to speak. Start a new CD from scratch > that is minimal (and minimal means minimal, not just 'without X') and > re-define core concepts that the CD will adhere closely to. (For > example, as proof of the soundness of LFS, the CD should strictly adhere > to LFS. If we adopt this one aspect, we should also be able to make use > of ALFS development to produce the CD, instead of maintaining a full set > of separate scripts.) > > * As has been suggested from a long time ago, make use of package > management in the build process, especially for BLFS packages. This > would allow at least two benefits: an easier development process, and > greater extensibility/customization. > > * Add an LFS-style document to the project that teaches how to create a > LiveCD from scratch. > > * Devise methods for users to more easily provide feedback and make it > easier to contribute as a whole. > > What are your thoughts on the above? And are there any other > suggestions, either new ones or ones that I missed? > > -- > JH I couldn't comment on the other thread as I never found the LiveCD much use. After LFS 2.4, I always had a working platform anyway - LFS. However, I think that this discussion needs to be opened out to: 1) Where should LFS go next ?? and after that: 2) How does BLFS respond to where LFS is going ?? and only then: 3) How should folk try it out or bootstrap the build system ?? For instance, if the answer to that included a package manager (for which I would vote), then many of the difficulties of maintaining the LiveCD go away. I'm also very interested in the idea of a document that describes how to build a Live CD using the LFS book as the base. This would be interesting, even to die-hard UNIX techy's like what I aspire to be. Gerard (who founded LFS sometime last millenium CE) hinted at having a view on this; but until we see it, there isn't much point in speculating. My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method, AND have a Package Management system, AND have a defined way of managing updates. THEN, I think ALFS and BLFS should use the chosen PM. Everyone should go build a DIY-Linux, and a CLFS system before deciding. Ditch your prejudices and have an experiment. (Please forgive me for all the bruised toes and egos - or you can shout at me if you want) I am getting some time back (finished laying stone floor last week - hands healing nicely thanks) now and might be cajoled into being involved if the plans look stretching enough - but not for tinkering to patch it up. Gee, it's been boring lately! Richard. #207 P.S. removed some but not all cross-post addys. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
