Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net
Thu Feb 4 09:36:25 PST 2010
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:49 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> I was disappointed when I saw that LFS seemingly ineluctably
>> was wedded to udev. I see that BLFS has some hints for doing
>> things without it, but then leaves the sysadmin to his own
>> devices (no pun intended) thereafter, with a one sentence
>> mention of mknod.
> Well, there's certainly nothing stopping you from building LFS without
> udev - if you're knowledgeable enough to create the necessary device
> nodes by some other mechanism. But there's no sense in taking that
> approach in the core LFS itself - udev is a fundamental piece of every
> modern distribution, and increasingly, a hard requirement for desktop
I understand that, and I wasn't complaining.
> Now, these things might not bother you too much - your system, your
> rules, after all. But it should make it clear why LFS is wedded to udev
> - because for most purposes, it's just not optional anymore.
Well, one of the reasons I'm leaving my current distro is that SELinux
isn't considered optional anymore. If all the lemmings go run off the
cliff, I don't necessarily follow.
ISTM that, by their very nature, LFS and BLFS are bound to attract
nonconformists from the get go, and it doesn't make much sense to
me to insist that "this is the way everyone does it now" for such
a type of "distro".
I also understand that this is a "labor of love", and nobody is
required to try to support every possible combination of everything.
So, I'll reiterate, I'm not complaining, just disappointed.
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
More information about the blfs-support