Pure LFS / Next LFS Release

John Anthony Kazos Jr. jkazos at vt.edu
Tue May 27 10:23:52 PDT 2003


>On Tuesday 27 May 2003 01:05 pm, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> > Ian Molton said the following on 05/27/03 17:55:
> > > On Tue, 27 May 2003 15:05:06 +0000 (UTC)
> > >
> > > tushart at abbnm.com (Tushar Teredesai) wrote:
> > >>I renew the proposal to change /stage1 to something more appropriate.
> > >
> > > I cancel the request. we'll never agree. leave it alone.
> >
> > I think that's up to our benevolent dictator! Several people have
> > allready commented that /stage1 is confusing, has no relation to the
> > build procedure and no obvious connection with lfs. So in all fairness,
> > it should be changed to something more semantically correct in order to
> > not get support questions like "Where's /stage2?" ;)
>
>How about something like '/lfs-bootstrap' ? This would show that the folder
>has something to do with lfs, and what it's there for.

"Bootstrap" is too closely related to the bootstrapping process in GCC or 
of the computer itself. I think the real bootstrapping is the pass1 
gcc/binutils, not all of chapter 5. If pass-1 and pass-2 are to remain in 
the same directory, I think it should be something like /build to represent 
the general goal of chapter 5, because it is the directory the LFS system 
is being built from (or, at least, using, if you don't have the tarballs in 
that directory). If they were to be separated (I know, I know, only I want 
that :P), I still don't think /bootstrap should replace /stage1, because of 
/boot. For my own installation, I am thinking of changing /boot to /kernel 
for the image(s) and /init for init() and its config files, and dropping 
/boot entirely.

-- 
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