[lfs-dev] kbd

Jeremy Huntwork 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 
new standard.

> In some cases we are very proactive.  We were one of the first to adopt the /run
> directory.
> 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 mailing list