Re: Hi, I'm back (somehow)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1779892131-1253-32909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am Mittwoch, dem 27.05.2026 um 05:14 +0200 schrieb Tim Tassonis:
> Hi all
>=20
> Forgive my recent silence as an editor of LFS/BLFS, this was almost=20
> exclusively down to professional matters (I got laid off by the=20
> company), I'm still fully behind the idea, goals and general management=20
> of LFS/BLFS.
>=20
> However, as those of you knowing me probably assumed, I'm of course=20
> totally and unequivocally against the recently made decision of dropping=
=20
> SYSV support in LFS/BLFS.
Yes, there are a lot of people which think that way and wonder why they did=
 the
decisions like they did.

> But as I was not of any help at the time of the decision, I naturally=20
> have to accept it, I had the chance to object, but didn't take it, my bad.
Too few time is something that happens to all of editors as it seems. And t=
his
is what they tell us as reasons for dropping SysV and so.

> I have now decided to go on like this: I will maintain a separate fork=20
> of LFS/BLFS at my home, for anybody that does not want to submit to=20
> systemd as being the only way to run a self-created Linux system.
>=20
> Because I don't, and I never will. And if it's just because this bloated=
=20
> piece of garbage was provably shoved down everybody's throat by a=20
> provably lying and manipulative former employee of Red Had and now=20
> Microsoft, with the very clearly stated goal of driving non-compliant=20
> UNIX's out of business.
That is IMHO not told loud enough was the goal of that system and people is=
. Ted
T'so has forulated a complain against the purpose/kind of implementation ov=
er
ten years ago. Dramatic to see how right he was even that time.

> I cannot be part of that, sorry, I'm too moral for this.
There are even editors who gives a sh*t on moral. And others do defend them=
 and
even launch strange thesis about others on IRC.

> But I still hope that my sysv fork and Xi Ruoyao's mainline can maintain=
=20
> a friendly partnership. I just would like LFS to point to a choice=20
> outside of Poetteringverse. It's much nicer there.
Interesting that you say that it is Xi's mainline.  I always thought that B=
ruce
is leading and i dared to ask...


> Bye
That is what i said to the LFS-Editor team because of exact all of the abov=
e and
more. I'm no longer an editor, I got fired, no ssh access anymore to the
machines. Just a few days later, they removed SysV, they removed mx32 from =
the
Multilib branch - all reasoned by "having too few time". Anyway, it is what=
 it
is, i don't care anymore.

I like to pick up what Rainer already answered: We have several forks alrea=
dy
existing or started due to the recent decisions of LFS.=20
=20
* an LFS-internal one, maintained by Randy McMurchy. But unfortunatly, it s=
eems
that the idea of doing an "official" spin-off has died before any thing has=
 been
published

* Kevins approach to unify the two books at
https://codeberg.org/kmb-codeberg/LFS-Set_of_Books
* MymeType's fork: https://github.com/MymeType/sysvlfs a simple copy of the=
 LFS
repo without any further additionals. Last update a month ago
* My own spin-off at https://www.belfs.org/lfsng
* i'm pretty sure there are even more

Me too started such a project (for me, a PoC, but publically available). I =
had a
chat with Kevin about unifying the books which we both see that it would ma=
ke
sence as it would simplify implementing automatics to maintain the book(s) =
and
such. But it seems Kevian is following another approach where to collect al=
l the
package info (pkg-version, -url, chksum, ...).  I want them do have them
centralized in packages.ent, he wants them in the package pages. Thats what=
 BLFS
is doing, i want to follow LFS's approach to to it centralized.
I also unified (or better I am unifying) the sources of LFS/BLFS to have a =
same
structure internally and i have added/replaced some elements to provide more
info for potential pkgmngt. Anyway, there are some more things i changed and
have set up (like automatics to upgrade the packages automatically). The ch=
anges
are incompatible to upstream, jhalfs will not work and even my own build to=
ol
(autolfs) has got a separate branch.
If interested in that project, visit the project (link above) and see how it
looks like when rendered at https://www.belfs.org/book/lfsng/. There is als=
o a
page about what LFSng is and what it _not_ will be. If finding that all
interesting, see the contact at the bottom of the frontpage. As said above,=
 its
not meant to be an aggressive competitor to LFS itself. It is actually a Po=
C to
see whether unifying and maintaining LFS & BLFS as a one-man-show is possib=
le
and if yes, to which extend...

--=20
Thomas

------------=_1779892131-1253-32909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
------------=_1779892131-1253-32909--