Should the build commands be reinstallable?
Bill's LFS Login
lfsbill at nospam.dot
Mon Jan 5 03:25:35 PST 2004
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Greg Schafer wrote:
> I know we do take this line in some circumstances, e.g. the coreutils
> hostname patch, but what about in general?
> Currently, there is a bunch of packages that fail to reinstall when using
> the book's commands, mainly due to use of "ln -s" instead of "ln -sf".
> There's also a couple of "mkdir" 's instead of "mkdir -p" 's as well. And
I've been doing the above two (ln -sf and mkdir -p). I presume most of
our audience that script do that also. For those *not* scripting, I
think the originals (no -f and no -p) are better.
So the determinant seems to be "who are we talking to?".
> So should we have an official policy on this? It's easy enough to make the
> changes but do we really want to? A downside to the "ln -sf" 's is that the
> first time reader may not see an error that would otherwise show up if they
> made a typo.
Even considering the '-v' suggested in a later post, I think the "who
are we talikng to?" question is the determinant. If we are mostly about
edu and not really focused on easier/better scripting, the errors
generated by the original commands provide a small learning for both new
and experienced users, as well as scripters and non-scripters.
Of course that may imply that we need a small piece of text somewhere
that mentions the possibility of these sorts of failures. Or not. Either
way, the user encountering these errors gets "reminded".
> Anyway, just thought I'd throw this up to the list to see if anyone has some
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.
More information about the lfs-dev