Proposal: ditch pre-made "console" and "network" scripts

TheOldFellow TheOldFellow at
Wed Jan 5 06:35:48 PST 2005

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> (This mail is the (probably over-)reaction to some messages to lfs-support,
> and to my general feeling that i18n was a failed experiment.)

Yes, a total over reaction.

> Currently, on the "console" page, the reader is told to create some
> magic /etc/sysconfig/console file with some settings that are impossible to
> explain to some English-speaking users. I propose to rework the page in
> order to reduce the number of unexplainable magic, in such a way:
> This is also a good place to document $rc_functions, boot_mesg and
> evaluate_retval in the book.

I don't have a problem with this, but I do think you should have more 
explanation of this with pointers to further material.  Don't forget the 
educational value of a good example - which need not be a complete solution.

> 3) Explicitly tell the reader that the questions like "what should I put
> into this script" will not be answered on lfs-support list because the
> reader is really supposed to know the answer himself from manual pages,
> howtos and his host distro (and if he doesn't, he is not ready for LFS).

If someone asks me a question, and I feel competent to answer it, I'd 
damn well gonna answer.  I really dislike this idea unless you are also 
going to put in information that lets a reader get to the information 
needed to solve her problem.

> Also, some time ago on IRC there were complaints that our network script
> infrastructure is overly complex. While I don't share this opinion, I admit
> that forcing the reader to write his own network script instead of a
> pre-made one is more educational and provides some possibility for the
> reader to successfully implement currently unsupported network settings
> like ppp-on-boot or bridges.

I like our network script.  It's the only bit that I use in my runit 
scripts.  I think it's elegant and clever, and entirely appropriate.

Who the hell cares what is said on IRC?  As a well known IRC guru and 
correspondent said recently 'it's a place for letting your hair down'.
Yes, it's a good place to discuss ideas, to gauge support for radical 
approaches, and 'let your hair down'.  It's not an appropriate place to 
make design decisions - because it isn't accessible to the whole LFS 
community at the same time (zone) and there are no official logs (nor 
should there be).


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list