plans and wishes
dss-lfs at cfl.rr.com
Sat Jan 17 07:42:08 PST 2004
Alex Groenewoud wrote:
> Anderson Lizardo wrote:
>>On Tuesday 13 January 2004 18:15, Alex Groenewoud wrote:
>>>j) Change from using $LFS to /lfs. If we can make a symlink on the
>>>host's root dir, we can also make a mount point.
>>DON'T do that. Just because we use a "hack" to simplify the LFS instructions
>>does not mean we can freely break FHS compliance (see
> There it says that /mnt is "provided so that the system administrator
> may temporarily mount a filesystem as needed."
And that is exactly what we are doing - temporarily mounting a
filesystem as needed. This is a proper use of /mnt
> But it also says: "This directory must not be used by installation
> programs: a suitable temporary directory not in use by the system must
> be used instead."
Basically they are talking about the installation of a package. A
package is not allowed to create subdirectories here because it is
reserved for only temporary mounts of filesystems. There should be no
directory structure under the /mnt directory except for the fs mount points.
> Hmm, what is an installation program? I haven't found a definition.
> What if the LFS book is considered as an 'installation program'?
No it is not. It is a method of building a complete system.
> it may not use /mnt but should use a temporary directory. Where to put
> this temporary dir? The section on /tmp only speaks of temporary files,
> nothing of temporary dirs. So apparently temporary dirs can be placed
> whereever one likes. Hopla: /lfs.
As explained above - bad premise for your argument.
> Of course, in section 3.1 of the FHS it says: "Software must never
> create or require special files or subdirectories in the root
> directory." _Software_ may not. But that doesn't mean that the
> administrator may not. "Other locations in the FHS hierarchy provide
> more than enough flexibility for any package." It's about packages,
> software, programs. It means one cannot make a package that would need
> a special directory in / in order to run. That is prohibited. But
> there's nothing that prohibits the administrator to make extra dirs and
> symlinks in / for her convenience.
I just don't understand all this effort to get rid of an environment
variable that *enhances* the flexibility of the build process, what in
most others situations is SOP. This way the user may choose where to
build the system an ignore that choice for the remainder of the book,
whereas with you solution the user must catch each usage of /lfs and
replace it with their own target.
When you have a frequently used constant value in a program, do you
define a constant or do you place the value all over your code? To me
using LFS is exactly the same situation.
More information about the lfs-dev