Re: An idea for a new development model
Randy McMurchy wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/15/07 07:20 CST: > > >> I would love to see some sort of proper support for PM go into LFS, but >> that all depends on the community... >> > > I'll go on record as -1. > > I feel we should mention it, provide links to the various alternatives, > and drive on. We are not a distribution. We are a book that shows how > to compile Linux from scratch. Let's don't forget that. > No, lets not forget that. However, showing an implementation of package management is not in any way detrimental to the education of readers. > Package management is beyond the scope of showing how to compile > packages (and which packages to compile). > > I'm not convinced one way or the other. PM is not what makes linux tick, but it may help keep it ticking. --- David Jensen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: An idea for a new development model
Randy McMurchy wrote: > david567 wrote these words on 08/15/07 10:56 CST: > >> Randy McMurchy wrote: >> >>> I feel we should mention it, provide links to the various alternatives, >>> and drive on. We are not a distribution. We are a book that shows how >>> to compile Linux from scratch. Let's don't forget that. >>> >>> >> No, lets not forget that. However, showing an implementation of package >> management is not in any way detrimental to the education of readers. >> > > "Showing an implementation" is one thing. Incorporating it into the > books is a completely different thing. No comparison. This discussion > is about should we incorporate something into the book, not showing > readers "an implementation". > > > Indeed, the book would need to be the implementation. >>> Package management is beyond the scope of showing how to compile >>> packages (and which packages to compile). >>> >>> >>> >> I'm not convinced one way or the other. PM is not what makes linux >> tick, but it may help keep it ticking. >> > > We've always worked with the underlying philosophy of "minimal". Said > differently, "just enough to create a working bootable system". PM > does not fall into that realm. > Adding sustainable/upgradeable is not too far off the mark. > If something were to be implemented, even a DESTDIR foundation without > full PM capability, would ruin cut-and-paste capability for the scores > of readers that don't want the bloat a PM brings into the picture. > > Agreed, a PM needs to be elegant (simple, robust, and unobtrusive). --- David Jensen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: An idea for a new development model
Randy McMurchy wrote: > I can't see it happening in BLFS for the simple reason that it would > be a monumental task (automating the proper inserts could perhaps be > done, but we wouldn't do that until *every* package has been tested, > which again would be monumental). > > The 'BLFS' task is already 'monumental'. Let's see what ideas 'emerge' (can say that here?), there's some 'smarts' being devoted to this thread! --- David Jensen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: An idea for a new development model
Randy McMurchy wrote: > david567 wrote these words on 08/15/07 11:45 CST: > >> Randy McMurchy wrote: >> > > >> Indeed, the book would need to be the implementation. >> > > My point exactly. You are suggesting a total implentation, where > all we really need to do is explain *how* to implement if the > reader wants. Not intrusive that way. Not doing a total > implementation does however ruin cut-and-paste for folks that > *do* want the framework. But I don't look at that as an issue, > as we are not suggesting implementation of a PM, but just a > framework for one of many, which means folks are customizing > anyway. > > Agreed. >>> We've always worked with the underlying philosophy of "minimal". Said >>> differently, "just enough to create a working bootable system". PM >>> does not fall into that realm. >>> >>> >> Adding sustainable/upgradeable is not too far off the mark. >> > > To me, it is hundreds of miles off the mark. > > I'm not sure which of us is the devil's advocate. 'Unix and C, the ultimate virus!', long live LFS! David Jensen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
5.31. Changing Ownership
I always backup $LFS/tools before changing ownership. Some undetected errors can still be resolved before, but not after, changing ownership. I suggest the 'Caution' before the command. Also the last paragraph and the caution are redundant. FWIW --- David Jensen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
