I leave the project
matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jul 7 13:40:02 PDT 2004
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:28:01 -0700
"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > I take issue with that. I don't think we should ever ship with a
> > known bad configuration, at least not for the *majority* of users.
> > It is quite possible that the configuration we supply is not the
> > correct or most useful for some users, and where such issues are
> > known they should be documented and pointers provided to where
> > further information regarding configuration options are detailed.
> > I've seen *nothing*, recently, regarding broken configurations, and
> > there's no open bugzilla issues regarding it either. If we aren't
> > made aware of the issues, how are we supposed to address them?
> And I take issue with this paragraph. I don't really want to
> participate in this conversation anymore, because the editors have
> decreed what they are (or are not) willing to listen to, but I have
> respond to this statement.
> Alexander, Ian and I have been discussing the pitfalls of using
> unstable as it stands today with any significant number of modules in
> use. The archives will show that there are a number of issues that
> could (and will) trip up users who are not already experienced with
> them, which they are likely not to be since there are few (if any)
> distros using 2.6/udev/hotplug and LFS-6.0 is likely to be their first
> exposure to this combination of packages.
Kevin - did you see what I'd said would be in the testing branch?
hotplug is *not* going into LFS-6.0 precisely because of the problems
that Alexander, yourself & Ian have been discussing. You accuse me (and
others) of not listening, yet you blatantly then demonstrate that exact
same behaviour yourself by rambling on about hotplug that isn't even
going into the branch, precisely because I (for one) did listen to your
More information about the lfs-chat