Re: libcupsfilters: mupdf not "Required"

Hi,

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026, Rainer Fiebig wrote:

> I was just about restarting work on this when I read that bombshell-news
> about dropped support for SysV.  What an unfortunate and blatantly wrong
> decision!  Very disappointing and demotivating.
>
> To me it seems pointless now to contribute to this project anymore.  So
> I drop out of this thread here.
I was hoping I could avoid the discussion, but at this point I feel I 
should raise my voice too. I'm happily following *LFS in a way "since 
decades". I haven't contributed all that much, but I'm a huge fan of 
"your system - your rules". So basically I'm build *my* system and really 
appreciate all your effort, teaching etc. to allow me to do that. And 
I only contribute when I have the feeling that whatever I found out 
about building my system could be ahead of or otherwise be beneficial 
for what you are doing "officially".

Guess it is rather save to say by now that I will *never* switch to 
systemd either - as long as I can avoid it in any way. I can't always - 
in my company I have to deal with it, but it's burden! I understand the 
theoretical benefit for "complex scanarios", but often it is more like 
complicating instead of solving problems for me. Yes it is e.g. "caring 
about" magically restarting crashed services but may easily do so with 
with wrong parameters or credentials. Which is way harder to deal with 
than a just stuck or crashed service. That is something I can deal with, 
maybe craft a maintenance cron job around it or something. But that may 
well run into a race condition with systemd trying to do it faster but 
intransparently and unfortunately wrong. Then the service seems to be 
"well running" but it is disfunctional. Happened to me more than once...

I'm very aware I may not be speaking for a majority, but *I* would prefer 
to drop support for GNOME and Plasma due to systemd in favor of support 
for SysV or something... Your system, your rules, your effort, I'm not 
trying to convince anyone. That said: *LFS are not loosing me that easily. 
I'm deviating from the book anyway, as long as it helps me - despite 
changed focus - the project is welcome.

@Rainer: Your contribution would not be pointless! Yeah, sure, it may not 
meet your own quality standards anymore ("tested against currect offcial 
book"), but at least for me, it is welcome anyway. Prominent example: 
Thomas' multilib branch is not mainstream either, but OUTSTANDING 
VALUABLE!!!

Keep up the good work, everybody!
Uwe

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page