Planning an overall direction for LFS

[taipan]

Robert Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday 01 March 2008 08:59:13 taipan wrote:
>> Looks about right to my unskilled eye, but i'd say the 'linearity' of
>> modules 1 & 2 would be a bit trickier to implement than it initially
>> appears...
>>
>> If you were to take the 'diy-linux reference-build' as an example,
>> Greg caters for the option of package-management during the
>> 'temp-tools phase' (or Chapter 5, or module 1, whichever you prefer),
>> which is a *must* for any users wishing to take the PM option during
>> Chapter 6.
>>
>> Furthermore, he provides his own build-scripts, either for
>> illustrative purposes or to be used outright, which include
>> 'temp-tools'
>> (Chap-5/module-1) in their automation-process.
>>
>> So sections on scripting/automating & PM ought to at least be linked
>> to at an earlier stage in the process than _after_ the bootstrap has
>> been completed.
>>
> Perhaps I am wrong, but I had thought the important part of integrating 
> PM is to be sure it is implemented _before_ the base system.  For 
> example, CLFS installs temporary Perl and testsuite packages after 
> going chroot ( or reboot ), but it works because it is done prior to 
> installing anything that will be present in the final system. In 
> diy-linux, PM is in the temp-tools phase, but is tacked on at the end, 
> optional and therefore , presumably, extractable into a separate 
> chapter/module/whatever.
>

Yeah, you're right. In that sense, separate modules on bootstrapping & 
PM would be sequential as you initially proposed. However it still 
leaves the (optional) issue of scripting/automating the bootstrap-module 
unsolved. I'm afraid i have no further suggestions to make on that at 
this point...

>> Does LFS want to cater to as wide an audience as possible, or would
>> it be worthwhile defining a 'target-demographic' at an early stage in
>> the planning process?
>>
> Also a good point.  As an LFS control freak, I just post where _I_ would 
> like to see the project go, and hope that my ideas are useful in some 
> form. ;)
> 

I feel much the same way, as i'm sure do most of the list-members here - 
it's extremely hard to be truly objective, it's against human-nature. 
The only difference between us would probably be that i'm more of 'an 
LFS control freak who would like to learn which steps on the 
learning-ladder he bypassed along the way'...

...And this mentality has had me thinking about what would help LFS's 
cause if it were decided to (& i really hate to use such a condescending 
term) 'lower the bar' so as to attract & retain a wider readership than 
presently exists. I have a few ideas on the subject that i'm still 
refining, but i won't post them unless the community decides that 
'defining a target-demographic' is necessary.

taipan