> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:14:45 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Systemd branch is alive
>
> Armin K. wrote:
> > On 12/11/2013 11:33 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Those of you who follow lfs-book will have seen some commits fly by from
> >> Armin, who asked to be granted access to work on the systemd branch. As
> >> I've been lacking time recently, and lost a bit of motivation for
> >> maintaining the branch myself, I was happy to accept the offer of help.
> >>
> >> Welcome back to the editing team, Armin!
>
> I'm glad you decide to come back also.
>
Yes, and notwithstanding attempted jokes re 'cross'-lfs, it's good to see
that 'elephant in the room' resolved (to mux metaphors).
In the interests of balance, though, and for the avoidance of doubt: I hope
that the *lfs*sysd* stuff "d**s on its a**e" (again). (Yeah, am aware
that'll, if anything, only strengthen resolve in some quarters.)
>
.
.
>
> > There won't be any BLFS book which follows lfs systemd book, at least
> > not maintained by me. Project is big enough that it's too hard for me
> > alone to maintain it. I might, however, create some (not strictly a
> > book) instructions on how to modify some blfs packages to utilize
> > systemd correctly. I do not promise anything yet.
>
> I suggest that we might want to add a 'Systemd Issues' or similar name
> to BLFS packages that need them. [...]
- so long as the xml is still easily computer-parseable such that the sysd
stuff can be skipped. *And*, any sysd-related commits to main b/lfs are not
combined with non-sysd stuff; so that, again, one can extract/apply diffs
without having to untangle multiple essentially-unrelated sub-parts.
Without those, b/lfs marches blithely down the 'less useful' direction.
Unless it's not considered a concern: one should be careful to keep a clear
separation between the two sides (i.e. between linux- and sysd- systems);
sysd will strangle non-sysd stuff if it can and if it's given a chance to.
> [...] If the Gnome desktop is restored, then
> I suspect that the intro to the section would mention systemd and apply
> to the entire section.
>
Hmmm. Wasn't gnome one of the main causes of blfs getting itself into a
never-coherent-enough-for-release tailspin: (presumably-unintentional,
paved-with-good-intentions, etc) dog-in-the-manger "don't push those
updates yet, I'm going to update gnome RealSoonNow (realsoonnow
(realsoonnow (no really, realsoonnow (realsoonnow, I have some time
(realsoonnow ... (realsoonnow, watch this space (...)))))" behaviour.
I'd suggest having separate lfs-sysd and blfs-sysd books, maintained with
a view to being able to do periodic clean merges with the (main) lfs and
blfs books. Is it beyond the wit of folks who build Linux systems from
scratch, to do that? And if that can't be achieved, then what do you think
will happen with sysd (incl gnome) stuff being layered directly onto main
blfs - there's already been one blow-up in recent months. Best to keep the
two strands respectfully separate, but with a view to said clean merges:
lets both sides work with 100% enthusiasm, and helps avoid large
resource-spend on controversies.
Regards,
Akhiezer
> -- Bruce
>
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
