5.1 Release Criteria

Nathan Coulson conathan at conet.dyndns.org
Wed May 5 16:55:10 PDT 2004


> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 4 May 2004 14:04:01 -0600 (MDT)
>>"Nathan Coulson" <conathan at conet.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>2.0.5 is 2.0.4 with the heimdal script in it (AKA, no changes when it
>>>comes to LFS).  It should be added for BLFS's sake.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ack, why are BLFS scripts in a LFS-Bootscript tarball?  Sorry if I
>>missed the previous discussion on this, but doesn't it just create an
>>unnecessary dependency between the two projects?
>>
>
> Nathan,
>   Why not separate the LFS and BLFS scripts.  In the LFS Makefile, put in:
>
> -include blfs/Makefile
>
> The dash indicates that make should ignore the file is it can't be found.
>
> We can place all the BLFS stuff in blfs/Makefile and support files.  The
> lfs package then only contains the
> main LFS scripts and then we have the users download a separate blfs
> scripts package, when they get to the BLFS Book,
> that unpacks from the same start point to, say,
> /usr/src/bootscripts/blfs.  This would also allow the BLFS scripts to
> stand alone.
>
> In any case, the LFS instructions need to be expanded to tell the user
> to keep the bootscripts package around for BLFS.
>
> Another last thought.  I didn't test it but the include statement might
> be even better as:
>
> -include */Makefile
>
> which allows us to drop new directories into the main bootscripts
> directory at any time.
>
>   -- Bruce

Makefile's dont really like using *'s on stuff that might change...  but
I'll look into it...

and if we do split up the bootscript packages, there would be no reason
for keeping the LFS side of the bootscripts around.


Anyway, I was hoping to propose such changes after LFS 5.1 has been
released, but want to keep things as they are until then.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list