What is considered "development"?

Jon Jester2.0 at comcast.net
Sat May 22 20:15:09 PDT 2004


Tushar Teredesai wrote:

>Everyone, IMO, is confusing the LFS project (comprising of LFS, BLFS,
>HLFS, ALFS, hints,
>...) with the LFS Book.

No, IMO, this not the problem.

>LFS Book just builds a bare-bones system of no practical use without
>the flesh that is added by the other projects, particularly BLFS. It
>provides the basis so that folks can extend it to what they want - a
firewall router, a modern desktop, a internet kiosk, ...

I agree

>The current argument is not about not embracing new technologies, it is

>about which arm of the LFS project they belong. Two examples come to my
>mind:
>
>    * There was a need for an hardened LFS system. In the name of
>      development, a case could have been made to incorporate that in
>      the LFS book (since it affected the core LFS packages). But it
was
>      started as a seperate sub-project because it is not be useful for
>      everyone.

HLFS is a variation of LFS, that is why it is a subproject.  IMO, not a
valid argument for/against package inclusion.

>    * A package manager is the heart for maintaining a modern linux
>      system. Without it there is no way for a user to create any
>      system. But it was never added to LFS, instead numerous hints
were
>      created with differing strategies to aid the user in this area.

A package manger is against the fundamental of LFS.  If you are using
packages, go get Red Hat.

>The same, IMO, goes for all the optional stuff like udev, hotplug, etc.


Why do you feel that udev is optional?  What makes devfs, or
make_devices so much different than udev that it should be relegated to
a hint or BLFS?

>Incorporating these into BLFS is also development of the LFS project.
>If at a later date udev becomes a neccessity to run a modern linux
>system, it would definitely be incoporated into LFS.

Why do you insist on *waiting* to incorporate it?  It is clearly been
stated that device numbers will be randomized in the future and udev
appears to be the number 1 contender for device handling once that
change is made completely.

>Even in the case where hotplug is added to the book, it does not create

>a complete system. With hotplug, your system dynamically creates the
>device for your camera which plugs in thru the usb port. Yay! Now
what?!

It is not about "Yay! Now what?!" it is about the fact that a base
system that supports USB hot plugging is already there.  It is about
having a base system that supports Modern technology in the way that it
is used.

>It is still not usable without the packages needed to read the images
>from the camera, touch them up, and upload them to your hosting
>provider so that your parents can see their newly born grandchild.

This has no baring on whether a core piece of the system should be
included or not.  You are using something that is CLEARLY not a piece of
the base OS to try and draw credence to your claim that udev is not as
well.



Matthew Burgess wrote:

<snip>

>Thanks for any constructive comments people can make on this,

For me, LFS is a Linux distribution but of a significantly different
breed than the rest.  It is a tool that goes miles beyond all other
Linux how-to, FAQs, and traditional distros about educating a user on
how the system works.  Because of its nature, there is no reason why is
should be behind any other distro in terms of the technology and
methodology that it uses to provide a base Linux system.  (LFS book)
The  two arguments that I have read over and over again are:

1. That udev does not belong in LFS Book since it is not "required" by
the kernel group and does not provide any benefit.  For me, there is no
argument here.  As I said above, we all clearly know that
devfs/make_devices will be depreciated and obsoleted in due time.  Why
is there any resistance to adding something to the book that will be the
future or at this time is the leading contender for the future way of
device handling.

2. That hotplug do not belong in LFS Book since it is not "required" for
the base operation of a system.  I agree with that only in part.  You
are correct that for the LFS to boot, hotplug is not needed, but for a
usable base system that is up to date and capable of supporting
technology and how it is used today, it is required.

>From my view, LFS is not meant to be absolute minimalist, it is meant to
be a minimal base.  The foundation for a wide variety of system uses.

Thank you for reading,

Jon


Polesoft Lockspam - Safe Anti Spam Way!
http://www.polesoft.com/


Polesoft Lockspam - Safe Anti Spam Way!
http://www.polesoft.com/





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list