Future of LFS (Other comments)

[Alan Lord]

Here's a few further comments "for the record".

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
<snip />
> 
>     2. Package management and automation
> 
> This is one of two difficult areas to address.  How to present PM and how to 
> integrate it into the book will take a lot of time to reach consensus on the 
> approach to take.  It would basically affect every page in Chapter 6.
> 

It is PM (or rather lack of one) that drives users of LFS away, 
eventually at least.

PM definitely "should" be optional rather than mandatory.


>     3. Linux Standards Base
> 
> This is more of a BLFS issue, but should be addressed in LFS as it sets a 
> foundation for the user's "distro."  Things like FHS should also be discussed as 
> a part of the intro to LSB.  This is really not a large effort for LFS as it 
> would probably be one new page introducing the issue plus some additional text 
> in appropriate places like paragraph 6.5.1 (FHS Compliance Note).
> 

Agreed and it provides an opportunity for more educational benefits and 
encourages the reader to do some "further reading/research"...

>     4. 64-bit LFS
> 
> This is the other difficult area.  How should the topic be presented and 
> integrated into the book will require a fair amount of discussion.  Whether to 
> add multilib is also important as a pure 64-bit system has problems with some 
> packages.  I would propose a page with an introduction to 64-bit processing to 
> provide the user a basis for choosing the desired configuration.  Integrating 
> the instructions in a seamless manner will be difficult.
> <snip />

Hmmm, I still haven't moved to 64bit and see little reason to currently. 
I'd have this low down the priority list personally.


-- 
The way out is open!
http://www.theopensourcerer.com