Re: SLFS book chapter proposals

On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 07:33, Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 03:49:24AM -0500, ashes wrote:
> > If it helps, I'm not opposed to following LFS-5.0. It is already stabilized so 
> > it would be easier to work with. I don't want to hinder community support for 
> > SLFS just to use bleeding edge development (it can be an slfs hint though). I 
> > hope this helps resolve one issue.
> 
> The big debate is whether to use LFS-5 or current CVS. CVS is a moving
> target, but if we did it all to 5.0 and 5.1 or later is released, we
> have to do all the catching up at one time. Quite frankly, I never
> figured anything would be ready while lfs-5.0 is still current, so my
> vote would be to follow cvs, though I'm not deadset on way or the other.
> 
> Opinions?

Of course ;)  We all have one..  LOL

Mine is CVS cause I agree with your point - SLFS is gonna be a while in
the making...  But, we should remember that we are going to initially
relase a psuedo hint file that deals with securing an LFS system - so
maybe using 5.0 would be better...  I mean, It can;t be THAT much work
to get the changes from 5.0 to 5.1 implimented.... Once we have the
general base laid out, and get some development happening, converting a
few packages and patches will be fairly easy...  It's the general stuff
that is going to be the work right now..  Getting the base system built
and secured.  

Maybe it WOULD be better to follow released LFS, until suchg time as CVS
reaches a bugfix-only freeze state - then we can start to migrate our
hints and docs to the next release.

  Rob Day (BOFH)

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-security
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page