Archaic archaic at
Fri Jan 2 19:12:43 PST 2004

On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:22:45PM -0500, ashes wrote:
> So hlfs is tracking and testing against lfs-cvs?

Seems the only logical thing. We are using LFS as our base, and our book
won't be ready for a while. I also believe that if we can, we should
stick to their package selection.  However, there will be some problems,
but we should truly try LFS packages first. Things like sysklogd may be
able to be patchd to give the functionality we are looking for. If not,
we need to have serious discussion weighing pros and cons. I'm not saying
we should try and supercharge a jalopy, but we needn't be too quick to
change packages, either. One hairy item will be HJL vs FSF. If FSF keeps
up with the changes, or patches can be backported, we should stick with
it, even though, personally, I prefer HJL. I'm sure no one on dial-up
wants to see us saying "Throw package X away because we use package Y".
Patches, however, are much less bandwidth intensive.


I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which grant[s] a right to Congress of expending, on objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents.

- James Madison, 1794

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list