wiki trial now open...

Nicholas Leippe nick at byu.edu
Fri Jun 20 18:27:43 PDT 2003


On Friday 20 June 2003 06:53 pm, Ken Moffat wrote:
>  Interesting, but I was taken aback to see a heading of `Deprecated'
> (gcc-2.95.3), I thought it would be for old things, and this causes me
> to ask two questions:
>
> (i) In my opinion, this gcc entry refers to chapter 6, not chapter 5 -
> would I be able to move it into the chapter 6 section ?

Hrm. I got the distinct impression that compiling gcc w/only the C backend was 
for ch5.  Perhaps I'm remembering wrong and ch6 did the same, and only blfs 
did otherwise?

Anyways, afaik CVS is going to use gcc 3.x from now on, which is why I listed 
2.95.3 apart.  I wanted to at least include the entry as a pretty good 
example.  I certainly don't want to just nix it, but I don't think it belongs 
up above anymore.

>
> (ii) You've copied in Zack's posting on this, in which he refers to the
> attached patch, but of course there is no link to the patch.  Are we any
> nearer getting an lfs-patches site ?

I've seen rumors about, but don't know what the status is.  I don't know a 
good way to link into the dri-dev archives, or if the attachments are even 
included.  I do agree that a central patch repository that can be linked to 
would be great.  Even if it's only ftp/http, as long as it's not going to 
move.  I haven't even looked yet--there probably already is at least an 
ftp/http location.

And, actually, the patch from Zack's post is inline at the bottom of the page.  
Perhaps it should have a bold/section title added?

>
> Actually, I've got a third question - the last release of the book and
> current CVS are very different, and I suspect this is usual.  The
> examples relate to CVS, should we have a separate (and hopefully sparse)
> section for releases of the book, or will this always be for CVS ?

I haven't decided yet.  I kind of had the idea that this would always follow 
the latest--mostly work-in-progress notes.  After all, the stable stuff is 
supposed to be stable, and IMO not need copious notes in addition to the 
actual text itself concerning issues and relevant decisions.  The text 
already explains the important tradeoffs and related gotchas.  Deviation from 
the book, while actually encouraged (or rather agressively /not 
discouraged/), still carries the caveat--your distro, your rules, you break 
it, you keep the pieces.

I had the idea that the wiki would mostly service those actively developing 
LFS and pushing it forward or those that like to do lots of modifications to 
their own installs, rather than those who simply use the results and stick 
with the stable version's instructions.

With that said, however, I also had in mind the possibility of putting 
LFS-release-versioned info at the bottom of some pages when found really 
necessary.  I don't really anticipate there being many notes regarding one 
particular version of a package that would differ from one release of LFS to 
the next (with the current shift to purelfs being an exception).

Perhaps each page could be organized in a way that would make this clear:
1) notes regarding configuring/installing the package itself (ie x path is 
hardcoded so use this patch to change it, etc)
2) notes regarding interactions of this package and other packages/deps.
this part could be broken down to LFS-version specific sections as necessary.

I'm hoping that something this rigid won't really be necessary--that we can 
keep the notes concise and clear enough for it to not really matter all that 
much.

Also, I would hope that if there is some particular touchy interaction between 
two packages, the interaction would merit it's own xref'd page that lists the 
issues and the different possibilities. (eg. pkg a w/option x requires pkg b 
w/o option y but pkg a w/o option x needs option z for pkg b w/option y--or 
whatever).

Additionally, it really isn't usual for the latest release and CVS to differ 
so radically.  It does now only because pure-lfs is a distinct departure from 
the static build steps, and because CVS was held off for quite a while 
waiting for the dead-tree version to hit the press. Historically, CVS is just 
incremental from the latest release--updating some packages, improving things 
here and there, etc.


Nick

-- 
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