wiki trial now open...

Nicholas Leippe nick at
Sat Jun 21 12:36:51 PDT 2003

On Saturday 21 June 2003 06:36 am, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 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.

Ohhhh, now I see 2.95.3 near the bottom of ch6.  Okay.  Then if it's going to 
stay there in the CVS version it does belong up in ch6.  Already done.

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

Yes, anyone can update the wiki--not just the maintainer.  I expect the 
maintainer (me for now) to act more like an editor and keep the layout 
consistent if it drifts a bit, and to occasionally rewrite some pages to keep 
them concise.  I hope anyone who edits the wiki, to do their best to conform 
to the style and intent as expressed in the intro, and that will 
evolve/mature over time as we use it.

> > 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").



>  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.

Hrm, guess I've forgotten about all that.  It's been so long.

>  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 ?

That's a really good idea--all we'd have to do is copy the tables in the db 
(prepend a version number or something), copy the wiki pages into a subdir on 
the website or somewhere else and there we go.  We could make the archive 
wiki ro, or leave it open for more updates in case something comes up.

I forgot to mention previously, concerning how the wiki might relate to 
bugzilla, mailing lists, irc, etc, to include the FAQ.  I think that a 
well-used wiki would entirely replace the FAQ, and be much much better than a 
static FAQ page somewhere, that only gets updated when the maintainer can do 
it. (IME there no FAQ has answered every FAQ!)


Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list