bdubbs at swbell.net
Sat May 22 11:20:41 PDT 2004
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:35:38 -0500
>Bruce Dubbs <bdubbs at swbell.net> wrote:
>>Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>>Should LFS configure & support dynamic devices?
>>Let me elaborate. Adding dynamic devices is more appropriate for
>>BLFS. LFS has never been an end result, but only a resonable stopping
>>point. To make an LFS system usable, a user MUST go on to BLFS to add
>>the functionality that any reasonable person needs for a computer
>In which case I have a proposal then. We rip out make_devices.sh from
>the book, and handle neither static nor dynamic devices, as they merely
>go towards making the system usable. IMO a device is a device. It
>doesn't matter whether it's static, dynamic, or a psuedo device (e.g.
>/dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.). IMO they need to be dealt with in the
>same place, whether that place be LFS, BLFS or a hint.
>What we should do then, is simply point people at devices.txt in the
>kernel sources and tell people that everything they need to know is in
>there. Additionally modutils/module-init-tools has no place being in
>LFS either as they deal with devices, so they'll have to go too. Hey at
>this rate we could cut the book down as far as the FROM-POWERUP-TO-BASH
You asked for opinions and you answer with what I perceive as sarcasm.
Have you made up your mind?
More information about the lfs-dev