George Makrydakis wrote:
> In what way(s) could you do this that diy-linux and
clfs do not do already?
> How is it going to compete with the other two? Or
three.. Or four... Or
> Infinity?
I'm sorry for being dense, but I'm not sure I understand
what you're
asking here.
> Combining from the other projects? How? Why? They
already _have_ it combined.
> Why not work on _merging_ the communities into a single
project? Doesn't that
> make more sense since the goals are apparently the same
since you are
> choosing an evolutionary approach for LFS ?
Unless I misunderstood Gerard's proposal, that is what he is
suggesting.
We don't have (seemingly) the manpower and community
interest any more
to keep the current structure in place. I think the projects
would have
to be merged in order to continue.
[snip]
> Isn't it a weakness in the social structure of LFS that
it could not hold
> these resources together? Educational use is no excuse
imvho.
Very probably. And part of the issue, I think, has always
been that
different people see LFS from different viewpoints. This
will always be
the case to a certain extent, but perhaps, with a redesigned
project,
the potential for social problems can be taken into
consideration as
part of the re-design.
> Again, how can it be different from Gentoo, Sourcemage,
T2, clfs, diy-linux,
> Archlinux, GoboLinux etc... the list is endless on the
meta - distribution
> front. Package management is not going to help saving,
if at all, anything.
How it will be different is something that will have to be
discussed.
> I do not think it is geeky, it should be more
"geeky" because there are MORE
> THINGS TO LEARN than how to build a toolchain, but i am
a "bystander" who has
> no reason to doubt your intentions and is probably
unimportant to you as a
> contributing opinion (for the time being, as some other
people, I do not like
> some of your policies when it comes to
"combining" things so there is really
> not much to contribute *here* but an opinion).
I don't know what you refer to when speaking of 'policies
for
combining'. In any case, many of former LFS
"policies" are probably moot
at this stage, due to the recent heavy stagnation.
[snip]
> Merging efforts (no matter to what you are referring
to, you have a point).
> Now this is the first and only thing that should be
really considered. I read
> that Mr. B You are absolutely correct on this one.
Would you care to explain
> if you are actually referring to attempts like LeafOS
(you and a couple of
> people where doing this long time ago, but it never
lifted up), how things
> should be done so that they do not end up in a
standstill?
I doubt many people here were aware of the existence of
LeafOS. But,
since you bring it up, it is a shame that it didn't achieve
its goals.
It failed mostly because on a personal level, I didn't any
longer have
the consistent time to give it.
Anyway, LeafOS only existed because LFS did not seem to be
moving
forward or doing much of anything, really. And now, much of
what is
being discussed on the LFS lists are core concepts and goals
of the
abandoned LeafOS project. I would have preferred for it to
happen with
LFS in the first place, so I am happy now to hear these
suggestions.
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> As to automation, package management ... give it a
couple of days... Really.
> You are hardly expecting this. Hardly. You will have
much to discuss about
> this in the following days. MUCH. And you will
understand why some things
> developed patiently and unannounced before they ripe,
create "glue points".
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course. I still have a few suggestions and ideas to put
forward, but
I am holding back a lot on these threads, because I'm
waiting to see how
the community as a whole responds first. And, I want to see
Gerard take
active action to make the decisions happen - to show that he
is serious
in reanimating the project, instead of just talking about
new ideas.
> To me, the only issue that is holding back LFS and
fragmenting it, is its
> social structure. You are unlikely to have LFS-NG
without taking into
> consideration this factor. Until you do, you will be
bleeding out people
> elsewhere, or trying to "combine" things into
branches etc. Other projects
> are not supposed to be component or conceptual
supermarkets.
You may be right that the social structure needs help.
Suggestions on
what needs fixing would be helpful, although, you may find
that things
which bothered you previously about LFS aren't a serious
issue at present.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
|
