Simplifying the LFS Bootscripts

Sébastien Maerten maerten.sebastien at
Sun Jan 9 05:11:03 PST 2005

Joel Miller wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> <snip good response>
> I absolutely agree with Matthew on this. I think that it's unreasonable 
> to expect the target LFS user to know advanced shell scripting to the 
> extent that they can make their own bootscripts. The ones we have are 
> fine. I've never said this before, so let me say thank you very much 
> Nathan and crew for making excellent boot scripts.

Let me first join others thanking Nathan for his really good work.
Then, I would like remind that the consensus seems that a bare LFS is a 
usable but not usefull system. I do **not** want this old flame to come 
back aqain, but Kevin's proposal for minimal bootscripts seems to fit 
with this. Keeping Nathan (and others) work seems a good idea to me and 
IMHO could bring additional value to BLFS's bootscripts (things are 
already nicely working how they are, though).
For both clarity and didactic purposes, I think it's better to have 
minimal scripts in the book, this way it's easier for a joe user like me 
to dig in and learn something. For usability I'd like to keep the ease 
of use associated with current scripts and thus would like to keep BLFS 
in sync with LFS.
I'd like to apologize for not having had a look at the scripts for a 
long (long, indeed) time, so I do not really know how much 
simplification is possible this way.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list