Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > IMHO, that's already too much for jhalfs to be useful. Some work should be > started on merging the useful bits back to LFS, and we should decide how to > handle the rest of the deviations.
If we're starting minimal, and we aim to stick strictly to the LFS book (as was an original aim; I realize I approved deviation for several of those items for various circumstances) then there's no reason we can't use jhalfs. You know better than I the reason for most of those changes. And you know which ones are suited to be merged back to LFS (with developer/community approval). I suggest you try to get the ones you feel are important merged to LFS and we'll drop the others if we start on a CD from scratch. I would want to get back to that original aim of adhering to the LFS book without deviation for the main system. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
