On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:09:48PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I can understand the desire to remove rules for non-LFS targeted > architectures, but have to disagree with the proposal to remove the > entries for audio devices and other BLFS supported devices.
Stepping in even later than you... :) While I didn't expect the first round proposal would be seen with much favor, I must point out the true impetus of this undertaking. None of the criteria Matt listed gives the "why" behind this, only the criteria that was settled on. The "why" can be stated (hopefully) simply and succinctly: The proper configuration of certain programs requires that additional groups (and sometimes users) be created to support the ideals of safe computing or whatever other label you want to call the separation of privs. However, these programs are not part of a base LFS system. As such their configuration is not a part of LFS. Any and all such devices that can be created by udev *will* be created regardless of the addition or omission of a rule. What does affect us is how far should LFS go? The line has been previously drawn up by Gerard after careful condideration in threads linked to in the two relevant bugs. That line is thus; LFS is not going to create users or groups for the explicit purpose of supporting BLFS packages. So now we are left with a quandary. If we do not create an audio group, how can we write a rule to make audio devices group owned by audio? There are two answers. One, we can create a rule that does everything but name the group, or two, we can omit the rule completely. Not only is the first option illogical, the rule created would be the same as the default. The second option allows for a scenario not unlike modular bash scripts. As for the overwhelming burden of BLFS in this matter, perhaps I am overlooking some things. What I do see is a statement about mouse devices in gpm and X USB devices in gpm and X audio devices in alsa video devices in X lp devices in the printing section Again, I may be missing things, but I think the above list is a lot closer to reality than the assumption that 400 pages need to be altered or even considered for alteration. The goal is learning. How people think that is most effectively done is certainly a subject for debate. This is also a big change which will instinctively draw criticism from many people only because it is a big change. All I ask is that we take a truly objective, non-personal look at this and work toward some finalized proposal that will benefit the readers; not the scripters who don't want to have rewrite some scripts nor the editors who have to make some changes. Granted the latter is worth giving strong consideration to, I do not think that if it is the main argument that it should have enough power to overrule the benefit. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
