Proposal: ditch pre-made "console" and "network" scripts
TheOldFellow at gmail.com
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