Planning an overall direction for LFS

[Alexander E. Patrakov]

Robert Daniels wrote:

> I'm really not too sure what to do about the scripting myself.  In some 
> ways it makes sense to put it with package management, as they both 
> relate to automation.  As you note, it would also make sense before the 
> bootstrap, to teach how to automate that module.  A third option is to 
> refer to outside sources for scripting tutorials.  LFS currently 
> assumes a basic level of Linux competency, and I wouldn't want to 
> totally get rid of this requirement.  Scripting information is 
> available in abundance through the internet and bash documentation.

One can't implement RPM-based package management without also scripting the 
build. So maybe the following compromise is suitable: refer to outside sources 
for scripting Chapter 5, provide a fully scripted (via spec files) 
implementation of Chapter 6 and BLFS in the "Package management with RPM" module.

> So, all of a sudden, we have multiple target audiences, at very 
> different levels of experience.  It will be a problem trying to come up 
> with a solution that will satisfy all of them, but I think it can be 
> done.

Then it may be a good idea to have multiple books, or, as other suggest, 
multiple modules.

OTOH, Linux was conceptually simpler and "just worked" earlier (i.e., in years 
2003--2004) without the need to disagree much with upstream (I mean UTF-8 
patches and, until recently, udev). That's why a book for Linux veterans was 
also understandable by mere mortals.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov