plans and wishes

Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational bill at nospam.dot
Mon Jan 19 04:06:23 PST 2004


On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Tushar Teredesai wrote:

> Joel Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:58:20 +0100, Alex Groenewoud
> > <alex at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Which would probably lead to more support requests.  And yet we use
> >> /tools and not $TOOLS, and don't get any mails about that.  Except if
> >
> > You are comparing apples to oranges. Using the /tools symlink is
> > required as when one enters chroot the packages installed in chapter
> > five will be located in /tools. That is the point of making the /tools
> > symlink in the first place.
>
>  From what I understood, what he meant is that instead of hadcoding
> /tools in all the places, an env var could have been used instead and
> then the user can use any directory he wants, /tools, /stage1, /staging...

That may be nothing more that the fact that /tools came along later in
the book's development (just as did /static) and the implementors, being
focused on the PLFS functionality ATM, didn't think of making it a
variable. Or maybe it was because /tools appears inside some files and
the variable affects that?

Regardless, it wouldn't surprise me if $LFS was originally hard-coded and
later on the usefulness of $LFS became apparent. Maybe /tools now gets
converted to a variable also if no drawbacks are seen.

Of course, great care and testing of that (before publication) would be
needed because it is a *critical* piece of the PLFS process.

>
> Anyways, just clarifying. I am not in favor of eliminating $LFS.

-- 
Bill Maltby,
LFS Organizational
billATlinuxfromscratchDOTorg
Use fixed above line to mail me direct



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list