On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> * LSB Compliance - For LFS we are nearly there anyway. >>> >> So, since you have raised this, what do you think needs to be done >> that is a major change ? More to the point, should we really care ? >> I don't have any interest in letting people run binaries. >> >>> * Dynamic boot script - No more static list of links, this kind of ties >>> into LSB Bootscripts, but there are other options. >>> >> >> I don't know what you mean by this ? It's the first time I've heard >> the phrase "dynamic boot script". I hope this isn't anything to do >> with upstart or systemd, what I've seen of those fills me with a >> mixture of horror and disgust ;) > > I've looked at this and made some posts about it in 2009. LSB is a > 'trailing' standard and many new capabilities (e.g. Qt4, KDE4, etc are > not adequately addressed in LSB. We already address parts of LSB in > section iv. We also mention building non-wide Ncurses libraries. > > I am not opposed to reworking the bootscripts to be more consistent with > LSB and setting things up to build the boot order into the scripts > instead of the Makefile. Is this enough to relabel LFS to 7.0 instead > of 6.x? Perhaps, but I would lean towards no.
It's actually pretty simple and can really enlightening to think through the dependencies of the scripts. I actually think that once you start doing it, you'll wonder why you weren't doing it before. Especially once you get into BLFS bootscripts, it can be a real pain to get the order right for running the scripts. Right now the LFS bootscript order is hardcoded in the Makefile, and the reasons for that order have almost certainly been lost to time. Doesn't the process of entering the script dependencies in the script and having a program order them for you make sense? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
