jhuntwork at lightcubesolutions.com
Fri May 18 09:34:10 PDT 2012
On 5/18/12 11:37 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy, I think you overstate the issues. To me, LFS is a leading edge system,
> but not a bleeding edge system. On one hand we try to keep up to date with the
> current package releases, but we try to stay away from intermediate versions
> that lie in the respective version control systems.
To produce a leading edge system, you need to do some bleeding edge
work. How that process leads to stability is a matter of organization
and development, but in my experience, LFS (as it is today) shies away
from any experimentation unless the larger distros are implementing some
> In some cases we are very proactive. We were one of the first to adopt the /run
> Others use a sledgehammer like systemd when the value for most users is small.
> We resist those changes. Likewise, we resist making an initrd mandatory or
> having /usr mounted as a requirement for booting.
> Some of the 'advances' take away capabilities. I feel that we should continue
> to provide options for the users.
> I agree that the Linux wold needs thought/energy and experimentation, but it
> also needs a stable base from which to launch those new ideas.
I agree with all these points, but being stable and
re-thinking/experimenting are not mutually exclusive. Again, it's a
matter of process and organization. But the typical behavior I've seen
is to nay-say new ideas because it does not fit in with the tradition
and the expectation of what the current-stable book is, instead of
encouraging a platform for new ideas and experimentation. Perhaps this
stems from the assumption that there are too few hands to do the work
involved to develop and support - but chasing away ideas also chases
away the hands to do the work.
More information about the lfs-dev