zarin at dscn.net
Sat Jan 3 07:35:16 PST 2004
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 22:12, Archaic wrote:
> 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 also don;t think we should limit ourselves on account of the 3 users
who are going to be worried about the hardened secure LFS we are
building. I think it will be generally agreed upon that the VERY vast
majority of our target audience will have some sort of high-speed,
always-on connection. Most users will be DSL and Cable, but as the
project gains some trust and starts to pull some weight, an increasing
number of users will be on dedicated lines like Tx and Fiber links.
Probably even a few users on an ATM network I assume.
We should not say "let's find a way to patch foo-2.4 to make it work
just like bar-1.6. Replacing foo with bar is going to take dialup users
an extra 20 minutes of downloading, where a patch to foo is only 3
minutes. I think the combined time spent by all dialup users to get the
replacement package will not exceed the time required to build, test,
debug, and verify a patch. (Not that we should use that as sole
justification, but if a better package exists, I say we use it, assuming
that it does not break something else in the LFS/HLFS build.)
Rob Day (BOFH)
More information about the hlfs-dev