Incremental upgrades

Steven hairpinblue at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 18 18:54:43 PDT 2007


On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:14:52 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:

>  More to the point, I've long thought that we don't really cover
> "the long-term care of your LFS system" (e.g. I don't think we point out

Care and maintenance of any complicated entity, a house, a garage, a 
method of building an OS, maintaining an OS, a car, a job, or writing 
near-bulletproof code is as much of an art as it is a procedure--and it 
varies from one person to the next.  What we can do is try to gently 
encourage new users, who may not be familiar with Xen and the Art of LFS 
Maintenance, into habits which will lead them to be good admins (both for 
themselves and for others, if that applies).

As always there is reading required:  http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-
koans/

>  OTOH, I think I can remember a large effort to prevent the book
> being dumbed-down, so maybe this is something that should be obvious to
> builders who intend to stay with LFS.

That's also a very good point to recognize.  It doesn't so much matter if 
we want people to stay, or if there are people who want to stay:  what 
matters is if they do stay.  If we involve ourselves deeply in every 
problem that they have then we will only frustrate ourselves and them.  
If we remain too aloof then the project will dwindle.  There is a balance 
to be found by encouraging good practices and discouraging bad ones.

Maintaining a system running a packaged distro on at least one machine 
will help the user to recognize things which need to be updated and give 
them insight how to go about it.  When the set of packages that Debian 
Sid updates meshes nicely with the set of security alerts which I've seen 
in the last week then I know that I'm watching the right stuff.

One last note on glibc updates:  When Debian updates a glibc there aren't 
often many packages which need to be updated alongside of it.  This must 
be due to a very careful watch by the devs on what changes are actually 
made in the glibc--and that may be related to social connections and 
manpower that LFS doesn't have (though I tend to believe that the LFS 
devs know how to stay on top of the bleeding edge of their respective 
areas of interest).  The only consistent part of a glibc .deb update that 
I remember is that most (all?) active running services are restarted.  
That's about it.  Yay for dynamic linking at runtime perhaps?




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list