locales, nls - supportable or not?

Vladimir A. Pavlov pv4 at bk.ru
Sun Nov 19 06:53:50 PST 2006

On Saturday 18 November 2006 18:37, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 11/18/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <patrakov at ums.usu.ru> wrote:
> > Thus, I insist that for every little thing that is present in the
> > book, there must be an editor who understands it fully. If there is
> > no such editor, this thing has to be dropped. I don't count as an
> > editor mainly because the last LFS system I built is LFS-6.2, and
> > my knowledge is not up to date.
> No one here understands glibc. Should that be removed from the book?

Really? If so then, yes, glibc should be removed from the book as it's
done in uClibc-based HLFS book ;)

But I guess everybody here understands why glibc is necessary. If it
isn't even so, everybody can try to build LFS without glibc and after
that he _will_ understand why glibc is necessary.

The same with gcc, binutils, bash, ncurses and other stuff present in
LFS. Imagine a situation if the book contains a patch for the compiler
and _nobody_ of the editors knows what the patch is used for. This
would be wrong, wouldn't it?

> The new kernel headers
> are causing breakage here and there. Does that mean that one of the
> editors needs to have C and kernel development experience?

That means that _if_ the book has a patch fixing a bug in the headers
then there must be an editor who knows what bug it fixes. Anyway there
must be an editor who knows what is the reason for the headers being in
the book.

> When I read the glibc or gcc page, I know it was
> not written by people that have an in depth knowledge about how
> either of those tools work.

Nobody may know "how" they work but there must be a person who knows
why they're present in the book.

> Look at BLFS. Is there any possible way that between Bruce, Randy,
> DJ, Ken and I that we have an in depth understanding about how
> Kerberos/LDAP/SSL/SMTP/X11/etc. work? Not a chance in the world.

BLFS is a different case. {,C,H}LFS are _linear_ algorithms leading to
a working linux system. Every package present in one of these books is
necessary. On the other hand, I cannot even imagine a system containing
_all_ the BLFS packages installed. Besides, if an editor adds, for
example, X11 then he does know what X11 is and what every step of
building X11 does (otherwise why does he add these steps?).

> If I have an issue with my mail server, I put it on blfs-support and
> hope for the best.

And in this case _you_ will be the editor who knows what that fix is
needed for.

> What I have an issue with here is that the level of support you
> expect is not in any way realistic.

IMHO, Alexander just wants the book not to contain the information that
nobody understands why it's here. And the support level has already
been as he expects with the exception of a few cases he pointed out.

Nothing but perfection

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list