State of Things [was: Re: Gnome-Python]

TheOldFellow theoldfellow at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 23:24:49 PDT 2007


On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:21:14 -0500
Randy McMurchy <lfs-user at mcmurchy.com> wrote:

> [cc'd to LFS-Dev as this is supposed to be a nice attaboy to the
> LFS devs]
> 
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/11/07 19:45 CST:
> 
> > It's the least I could do after you powered through so many
> > commits over the past couple weeks.
> 
> Once upon a time, I read a message from Alexander and he said that
> (B)LFS was maybe the best 'distro' out there. Not sure when or why,
> but I remember him saying that at one time.
> 
> At this point in time, I think that the (B)LFS instructions from
> the current Development books are as good a combination as there
> has ever been. Too bad half the folks that would want to use it
> won't because they feel that their 64 bit machines need CLFS
> massaging.
> 
> I'm really pleased right now with where the books can take you on
> X86 platforms. We are really quite modern right now. Other than
> the X86 platform is rapidly becoming semi-obsolete.
> 
> (this wasn't meant to be a dig on the X86 platform, references are
> only because so many probably now use 64 bit machines and don't
> think that [B]LFS is for them)
> 

and you should not forget that CLFS could not nor would not
have existed without {B}LFS.  The BLFS part is equally as important as
the LFS part to CLFS viability.

It is also true to say that you, personally, have driven this through,
even in the days when you were not the project leader.  Your pride in
the 'product' is well founded. (and we have to thank Dan too, who has
been a more recent 'tower of strength')

I don't use 64-bit stuff yet, despite having the hardware.  There just
isn't much point to all the extra effort.  All my scripts are derived
from BLFS - and I track svn closely to spot stuff I couldn't
possibly spot on my own.

R.




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list