Bootscripts - Why combining is a bad thing
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 30 10:29:37 PDT 2006
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> What text will be in the LFS book. "Here is the current LFS tarball
> to install after you complete LFS. It also has BLFS bootscripts in
> it, but they probably aren't current, so you'll need to get a
> different tarball for BLFS." :-(
Maybe I wasn't clear on the combining of things. Perhaps an oversight.
It's not perse the intent to combine everything into one tarball
release. I agree that with bootscripts it's a bit of a different scenario.
We could still decide to at least place all the bootscripts in the
bootscripts SVN repository and generate two tarballs (one for LFS, one
for BLFS) when changes are being made. One way to look at it is
splitting off the "software developments" aspects from the "book
Of course you raise a point that if you need to update a bootscript,
this new group needs to deal with that in a timely manner.
As such it only makes sense to me that all book editors get write access
to the repositories. It's not meant to give people sole control over
them. We can collaborate. I can see you, Randy, get commit access so
when you update your package, you can update or create its bootscripts,
release a new blfs-bootscripts tarball along with the package update. Or
if you don't have the time to create a blfs-bootscripts release,
somebody else in the group can do it.
What I personally am after is putting these components and source codes
in one central place from where one or more tarballs can be released as
we deem necessary.
Likewise, putting all the udev rules together in one package might end
up undesirable. But they can be managed and maintained by people who are
best qualified and they can then deal with releasing two tarballs (one
for LFS, one for CLFS, maybe BLFS too). Those are logistical things in
the end and not the primary problem at this time.
As Matt put it (slightly edited):
...with subversion's branching capabilities it's trivial for this group
to ensure that the versions in LFS/BLFS/CLFS differ *only* in the way(s)
To summarize again, just to be sure it's clear: the goals as I
personally see and meant them is *not* to put everything into one single
tarball. That just is not feasible with some of the things we're doing.
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
More information about the lfs-dev