Robert Daniels wrote: > On Saturday 01 March 2008 08:59:13 taipan wrote: >> Looks about right to my unskilled eye, but i'd say the 'linearity' of >> modules 1 & 2 would be a bit trickier to implement than it initially >> appears... >> >> If you were to take the 'diy-linux reference-build' as an example, >> Greg caters for the option of package-management during the >> 'temp-tools phase' (or Chapter 5, or module 1, whichever you prefer), >> which is a *must* for any users wishing to take the PM option during >> Chapter 6. >> >> Furthermore, he provides his own build-scripts, either for >> illustrative purposes or to be used outright, which include >> 'temp-tools' >> (Chap-5/module-1) in their automation-process. >> >> So sections on scripting/automating & PM ought to at least be linked >> to at an earlier stage in the process than _after_ the bootstrap has >> been completed. >> > Perhaps I am wrong, but I had thought the important part of integrating > PM is to be sure it is implemented _before_ the base system. For > example, CLFS installs temporary Perl and testsuite packages after > going chroot ( or reboot ), but it works because it is done prior to > installing anything that will be present in the final system. In > diy-linux, PM is in the temp-tools phase, but is tacked on at the end, > optional and therefore , presumably, extractable into a separate > chapter/module/whatever. >
Yeah, you're right. In that sense, separate modules on bootstrapping & PM would be sequential as you initially proposed. However it still leaves the (optional) issue of scripting/automating the bootstrap-module unsolved. I'm afraid i have no further suggestions to make on that at this point... >> Does LFS want to cater to as wide an audience as possible, or would >> it be worthwhile defining a 'target-demographic' at an early stage in >> the planning process? >> > Also a good point. As an LFS control freak, I just post where _I_ would > like to see the project go, and hope that my ideas are useful in some > form. ;) > I feel much the same way, as i'm sure do most of the list-members here - it's extremely hard to be truly objective, it's against human-nature. The only difference between us would probably be that i'm more of 'an LFS control freak who would like to learn which steps on the learning-ladder he bypassed along the way'... ...And this mentality has had me thinking about what would help LFS's cause if it were decided to (& i really hate to use such a condescending term) 'lower the bar' so as to attract & retain a wider readership than presently exists. I have a few ideas on the subject that i'm still refining, but i won't post them unless the community decides that 'defining a target-demographic' is necessary. taipan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
