wiki trial now open...

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Sat Jun 21 05:36:46 PDT 2003


On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Nicholas Leippe wrote:

>
> 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?

 gcc C-only _is_ true for chapter 5, but gcc-2.95.3 is for building the
kernel.  That only needs C, but without the patch some of us were for a
short time building c and c++ to get a C compiler that handled the
-Wreturn-type correctly.

 Anyway, would somebody updating the wiki be able to move the entry, or
would that be reserved for the maintainer ?

>
>
> 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?
>

 Oh, that vertical bar in the browser, with the arrow at the end, is for
scrolling down ?  Knew I should have gone to bed sooner, I just read the
first part, then skimmed down to see if the patch was linked.  Instream
like this (for a short patch) is great, and somebody could edit the wiki
to say ("it's not attached, it's below").

> > 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.
>

 Agree with all of this, except about the normal degree of difference
between CVS and the previous release.  I came here when 2.4 was the
release, and was advised to try what became 3.0 because it fixed
problems I was having.  Then some time before 3.3 the bootscripts changed
in a major way.  For 4.0 we had "keep chapters 5 and 6 separate".  My
impression is that about half of the releases have significant changes,
and that these take longer to stabilise, so perhaps 60 to 70% of the time
there are significant differences between the last release and CVS.

 I agree that there seems little to put in the wiki for a released
version of the book, but then we haven't had the wiki, so I wouldn't
rule out finding a use for it.  If the wiki is for CVS, will it be
archived each time the book is released ?

Ken

-- 
You'll always find me out to lunch
-- 
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