Kernel page, once again

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Tue Jun 15 21:17:03 PDT 2004

Jeroen Coumans wrote:

> Summary of your long post (please correct me if I misrepresent you):
> 1. we should include configuration and documentation for all possible 
> combinations of packages which a user can optionally install. This is 
> because the current docs about hotplug/udev are insufficient, and 
> there are too many problems a user can run into.
> 2. if a package is optional and has alternatives, we should include at 
> least one alternative.
> This goes IMHO exactly against the currently default principle that we 
> should provide instructions and support for one default choice, but 
> point out alternatives. Arguments:
> * including more then one alternative means you have to include all 
> alternatives
> * there is no educational benefit for providing more then one package 
> which serves the same function
> * we try to keep the number of packages in the book down because LFS 
> does not try to be everything to all people
> * we have to assume the reader follows the book, because it would 
> require not only a lot more support issues, but also testing and QA 
> issues if we account for every deviation.
> Furthermore, in my POV, optional only means that the package is not 
> required for a fully functional LFS system, not that the book provides 
> instructions in case you leave it out. Perhaps we should declare all 
> packages mandatory...
> Lastly, your points that udev's documentation is incomplete and it has 
> a lot of possible traps are only arguments to reconsider the decision 
> to include it in the book, not a reason to expand the book just 
> because the package is not ready yet! I have repeatedly stated that I 
> didn't consider udev ready for prime time (bleeding edge); seems that 
> you just confirmed my opinion.
Please, can we stop beating this horse, it's DEAD already!


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list