[LFS Trac] #2094: Add a new section for build results

Justin R. Knierim lfs at lfs-matrix.net
Sun Oct 21 01:00:57 PDT 2007


Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Obviously, no. You'd have been the first person I'd have gotten in touch 
> with. I haven't mapped out the plan of attack yet - which is why I 
> haven't brought up on this list. That Trac ticket Jeremy put up was done 
> at my request. I was checking out the status of both his branch and what 
> CLFS is doing and asked he added whatever notes he had available like a 
> version of a TODO list.
>   
I know I am not a hardcore developer in either lfs or clfs, so my voice 
isn't one of much authority, but if I could throw out my opinion.  It is 
clear that supporting multiple arches is becoming more and more useful.  
CLFS is a sub project of LFS and already has working and tested 
implementations for so many arches, with 32bit, 64bit and multilib.  
These are not all useful at this time in the main LFS book.  While 
research is always fine, why would one do research that has already been 
done for possibly even years now by CLFS devs and not even drop them a 
message saying "how can X arch or X bit system be best implemented in 
LFS?"  I know Jeremy is a great guy and does good research, but in my 
opinion not contacting CLFS devs _is_ re-inventing the wheel.  Is it so 
hard to email one of us to ask for opinions or ideas?

I do not know every detail of lfs or clfs myself, but as one who more 
closely associates with the clfs team than lfs, if asked I would give 
all my limited knowledge to anyone asking.  I think the other devs are 
the same, available almost always on mailing lists and irc.

-- 
Justin R. Knierim
lfs at lfs dash matrix dot net

P.S.  The years sure do fly by.  I don't even know anymore how many 
years I have been building lfs systems.  It is even hard to believe it 
is 3 years since I took over ftp maintainer.  I just want what is best 
for all the projects...



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list