Vacation ended, made up my mind, here is what I want to do

Andre Pang andrep-ml at
Sun Jun 11 18:43:44 PDT 2000

On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 05:06:35PM -0500, mabell at wrote:

> we need to setout some rules not to say the person installing cannot
> break them, but to make the howtos agree.. such as:
> 1. packages go into the /usr dir instead of /opt or anywhere else
> 2. the howto must be written as though the user has installed only the
>    base lfs system
> 3. the init scripts should be written following a certain pattern
> 4. even assign a certain order that daemons startup, otherwise we might
>    have our named and dhcpd both telling the user to link to /etc/rc2.d/S45*
>    or whatever
> 5. the writer must keep it updated, help out when problems arise
> otherwise this thing will become a mess...

    what's wrong with it being a mess? :)

    if you're going down the LFS way, the whole idea of it is that you want
to do something different, and that you are not using Redhat/SuSE/etc.  i
think the cool factor has alot to do with it.  if it becomes a mess, then
that's okay by me.

    imho, there are two main approaches on how people can use LFS:

    (1) as a strict guide on how to configure their own Linux system.  this
means following the guidelines (in most cases because the user doing so
doesn't know better) and does things the way the HOWTO mentions.

    (2) as a guide to what is needed in order to set up their own Linux
system.  LFS tells them "okay, here's how you basically get gcc up and
running", and then they take that idea and maybe they'd like to modify it a
bit, according to their needs.

    there's a subtle difference between the two, and i'd like to stress here
that LFS is _great_ as it is and there's no need to change it.  what LFS
should not do is force users into saying "please insatll all packages into
/usr" and "the booting of your Linux system will involve settings up
/etc/rc.d/[SK][0-99] scripts".  it should, and does, encourage these things,
but there's lots of ways to do things, and it should also promote different
ways of doing things.  for example, with the init scripts, you should
suggest to a user that the /etc/rc.d/SK scripts are a fairly standard way of
doing things (not "the" standard), and then perhaps tell the user that he
might look at other ways of performing the boot-sequence, like how Slackware
uses BSD-style inits (which IMHO can be _much_ cleaner), or how Mastodon
( ) uses a daemon
load-on-demand style bootup.

    like i said, i'm very happy with the way LFS is and Gerard has done a
great job with it, but the kind of person who would use LFS is probably a
fairly advanced Linux user, who seeks to understand more, and encouraging
that curiosity by telling the user "There's More Than One Way To Do It". 
my own filesystem hierachy on the box i built a while ago is very non-FHS,
for instance, and i intend on keeping it that way; my initscripts consist of
_one_ rc file, which is far simpler and easier to maintain than lots of
rc.d/SK* bollocks :).

    anyway, i'll get off the soapbox now.

> told me about how linux is "rocksolid" and if you set it up right it is
> "impossible to hack" and all sorts of bullcrap.... oh, and that he worked
> for redhat and was a major part in making portsentry, anyways after this

    note: if he worked for redhat and had a major part in making portsentry,
he probably does know what he's talking about :).

: Andre Pang <andrep at>  -  #ozone  -  ph# 0411.882299 :
:              ...[ = trust in love to save = ]...               :
Mail archive:
IRC access: server: port: 6667 channel: #LFS
News Reader access:
Unsubscribe: email lfs-discuss-request at and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list