patches vs sed

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Sep 28 13:52:47 PDT 2002


On September 21, 2002 12:26 am, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Simple seds are fine.
> Complex seds should be replaced with patches.

I fully agree. I rather see a man patch than this sed (a note is in Bugzilla 
now). The reason sed's show up so easily is because they are so much easier 
to integrate in the book. Adding a new package (or patch - same procedure) is 
a very bothersome procedure at the moment. It's not difficult, it's just a 
royal pain in the *ss to do it properly. It doesn't help that nothing when it 
comes to editing the LFS-book is automated, so there are all kinds of xml 
files to edit and new files to be created.

And, no don't bother coming up with ideas to make it easier. It'll get done 
eventually we just need a lot more time to make all those kind of changes. 
It'll be a while before we have that kind of time.

So it seems the current method of fixing something kinda goes like this:

* Add a sed since it'll at least fix the problem the speediest way
* Then when we have a bit more time we'll create a patch, add it, create a new 
lfs-packages tarball and so on.

Not the kind of procedure I prefer, but time contraints kind of force this 
upon us sometimes.

-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list