Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 23:39:04 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: > Okay, so I was just thinking... > help us! I figure we have at least 6 months, potentially a year until > the next major LFS release, and now seems like a pretty good time to > explore some of the ideas that have been shelved for previous rele

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Ken Moffat
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: > Okay, so I was just thinking... > help us! I figure we have at least 6 months, potentially a year until > the next major LFS release, and now seems like a pretty good time to > explore some of the ideas that have been shelved for

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Robert Xu
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 16:45, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> * 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 firs

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread DJ Lucas
Robert Xu wrote: >On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 16:45, Ken Moffat >wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> >>> * 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

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Dan Nicholson
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Robert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 16:45, Ken Moffat wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> >>> * Dynamic boot script - No more static list of links, this kind of ties >>> into LSB Bootscripts, but there are other options. >

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Robert Xu
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 19:02, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Robert Xu wrote: >> >> The LSB bootscripts work similar to insserv on (newer) Debian and SuSE, >> right? > > Yeah. Instead of hardcoding the symlink order as is done in the > bootscripts Makefile, dependencies

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread DJ Lucas
Ken Moffat wrote: >On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> * Multi-lib - Shunned previously, but there are many projects that >> expect this environment. > For people who build from source, which projects *expect* multilib on >x86_64 ? For me, Virtualbox and WINE. AOSP

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Bruce Dubbs
I've read about 15 messages on this topic and will try to incorporate the relevant areas in my response. Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> Okay, so I was just thinking... >> help us! I figure we have at least 6 months, potentially a year unti

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Bryan Kadzban
Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> * Multi-lib - Shunned previously, but there are many projects >>> that expect this environment. >>> >> For people who build from source, which projects *expect* multilib >> on x86_64 ? >> >> I will agree that building a bi-arch desktop (that is, both 32-bit >> and 64-bit X

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-14 Thread Dan Nicholson
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs 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 lettin