Hi again, Sorry about the previous post. Slipped onto the send button.
On 4/30/06, Matt Darcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of direction. I suppose the discussion should center around a.) Do we stick with LLH and pray it takes off again
It's dead. But I agree with Archaic that for LFS-6.2, a stable release, this tried and true set should be used.
b.) work with Jim's methods of sanitizing our own headers
I would be willing to go this route. I also would like to consider Jürg Billeter's sanitizing script. http://www.paldo.org/paldo/sources/linux-glibc-headers/linux-glibc-headers-20060329 The reason is that Jürg is a real programmer and he has built a full beyond BLFS distro with these headers.
c.) Look at what other distros are doing and try to work with them
This is even more promising. According to this (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/4/26/296) and subsequent posts by David Woodhouse of RedHat on LKML, there is a real push to get a collective sanitization effort amongst the distros. I will be eagerly monitoring this since these people have infinitely more experience in this area than I do.
2.) Udev - This again has been a hot topic of many projects, but with LFS now dropping hotplug I feel it important ti discuss and clear up a few areas a.) Udev rules - how complete/incomplete should they be b.) which project cover which rules eg; lfs base only, blfs additional, clfs base+additional archs devices ? that sort of thing
I'd like to see one major set of rules. Additional rules that are package specific (BLFS) or architecture specific (CLFS) I would hope would be the only separate rules. This is going to require cooperation among the projects. I realize CLFS has a full set of rules as well as LFS. Let's take a look at these to form a common set. Then we can all have the same setup going forward and CLFS should only have to worry about udev rules for MIPS-only devices, etc.
d.) Should we all use the same rules lfs/livecd/cross-lfs/hlfs even ?
Yes. Unless there is something specific to the project (which would be dropped into additional rules files), I think we should also see the same setup in /dev.
3.) users and group creation, I'm reluctant to touch on this again as I know its close to a few individuals hearts and a lot of time has been put into this, but due to the ude discussion I think its worth at least touching upon.
Last week when this issue came up, I made a stink that I didn't want to see a master list for this purpose. I still don't want to see it, but I'd be willing to compromise on it. This just seems like one of those areas that will require cross-project cooperation. I don't feel strongly enough to get into a political war about this, but here's how I feel. When you finish the base system, there really isn't any reason to have more groups than a couple base ones like utmp and whatever's necessary in the udev rules. After that, I don't see a reason to add users and groups until they're necessary. There's really no reason to install a mail user and/or group until I actually have an MTA on my system. Let's decide something and go forward.
On a final note, I know this has been said to individuals before, and I preach a lot about it, but I'm hoping that with this discussion there is a real potential to bring all the projects closer together and more "agreed" on the direction the overall project is taking
I feel like this is a good goal. I personally can say that I'll work with people as a BLFS editor to make this happen. Splintering of the projects doesn't help anyone. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
