LFS Package GPG Signature

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jun 7 12:31:27 PDT 2004


On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 21:03:34 +0200
Jeroen Coumans <jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> Roel Neefs said the following on 07-06-2004 20:11:
> > 
> > LFS is beginning to become a more and more linux newbie oriented
> > book, and i don't like that change, it is a hell for support.
> 
> Where has it become more newbie oriented? If anything, the move to 
> 2.6/NPTL raises the bar, especially by requiring the user to built a
> 2.6 kernel before LFS actually begins. Providing references to
> *external* documentation is not a signal of the book becoming more
> newbie-friendly, if anything, it stresses the scope and boundaries of
> the book and sets the required knowledge to build an LFS system. But I
> understand how this can be seen as a sign that LFS becomes more newbie
> oriented. Education seems to be a less important goal then the
> building of a custom system, at least, that seems to be the current
> trend.
> 
> BTW is support really increasing, or is that just an assumption? The 
> support lists seem to be very quiet lately, but I can't speak for IRC.

Replying here, as it's as good a place in this thread as any I suppose!

Firstly, apologies for any incovenience caused by the way I signed and
distributed my key - but this was done under advisement as I'm a GPG
newbie too!  I *did* upload my key to a key-server, but also provide my
key on belgarath for those that want it that way.  Additionally, the
tarball mirrors provide a copy of my key, although I did this for
convenience rather than security (due to both the tarball and key being
on the same server).

Secondly, I believe that chapter03/packages.html does need 1 or 2
sentences (at the very most) regarding the *need* to verify the
tarball, and how to perform this verification.  Obviously the "need"
needs to be emphasised.  My reasoning for having the "how" in there too
is that PGP/GPG is a *relatively* uncommon package to be making use of,
especially when compared to the likes of 'cp' and 'tar'.

Lastly, the books educational goal is no less important than it ever has
been, neither do I think the barrier to entry has been raised
significantly by recent changes.  If the newbie was unable to compile
a kernel on an LFS-5.1 book, they'd be screwed...just at a much later
stage than if they can't compile one on an LFS-HEAD book.  Better to
warn them early IMO.

If, however, *anyone* sees commits going into the book (all archived on
lfs-book for those of you who aren't aware already) that you think dumb
the book down (or conversely raises the barrier to entry too high) then
by all means bring your concerns up, but we need specific examples in
order to address them properly.

Thanks and best regards,

Matt.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list