Thinking forward LFS-7.0

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Mar 13 21:45:41 PDT 2011


On 03/13/2011 11:39 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Okay, so I was just thinking...<replaceable><Deity></replaceable>
> help us! I figure we have at least 6 months, potentially a year until
> the next major LFS release, and now seems like a pretty good time to
> explore some of the ideas that have been shelved for previous releases,
> and even some new ones. Here is a quick list to see if there is any
> interest. I'll reply to my own post afterward to separate my own
> suggestions from the initial list.
>
> * Package Management - Always causes a good debate.
>
> * DESTDIR - Been mentioned several times and actually this is not too
> disruptive (I did a POC about 3 years ago).

For me, these two go hand in hand. Package Management, historically, has 
always generated a fueled debate. There are many options here including 
conditional processing of the book's sources to allow for various forms 
of package management. I had previously suggested years ago that we move 
the default build instructions to include a very simple DESTDIR style 
installation, with the final installation done manually from the DESTDIR 
target. This method lends itself well to almost all forms of package 
management without the need of choosing a specific package manager. This 
method also gives us the option of pre-processing the book's source code 
for a specific package manager either by conditional logic (as I 
understand the new docbook is capable of), or in a simpler form, using a 
Makefile target to pre-process the book using sed or other standard unix 
tools if the instructions are split into pre-install, build, install, 
and post-install targets.

> * LSB Compliance - For LFS we are nearly there anyway.
>
> * Dynamic boot script - No more static list of links, this kind of ties
> into LSB Bootscripts, but there are other options.
>
Again, these two go hand in hand for me. In the current lfs-bootscripts 
tarball, I've been working on and using exclusively the contrib/lsb-v3 
boot scripts for over 3 years now. They are an extension of something 
that Nathan Coulson and Alexander Patrakov had started on. These are 
completely lsb-v4 compliant as well and are IMO a huge improvement over 
the current boot scripts. I've been using Dan Nicholson's initd-tools 
package to provide the install_initd and remove_initd programs. Aside 
from the fact that there is no longer any need to maintain a list of 
symlinks for startup order, they add a lot of niceties, including 
boot-logging and conditional startup for trouble-shooting.

> * Multi-lib - Shunned previously, but there are many projects that
> expect this environment.

I just kinda threw that in there. A couple of projects that I use beyond 
BLFS expect that environment now for 64bit builds, specifically AOSP, 
Wine, and VirtualBox, all of which forcefully exclude the official LFS 
as my daily driver now. I've been using the work of the CLFS devs for my 
own daily driver with some heavy modifications to match LFS proper as 
much as possible.

> * EGlibC - Seems like Debian and friends are moving to EGlibc, gives us
> a couple of niceties but nothing major, not sure what other distros are
> doing, but I've seen a lot of mentions of it recently. The work is
> already done by the way, our fellow devs at CLFS already have it covered
> for us.

Same thing, I've seen lots of mentions of it so I'm throwing out the 
feelers. CLFS has already done this and I've used both. I have no real 
opinion either way yet. I did not have anything more than minor issues 
making GLibC proper conform to my expectations (/lib -> lib64/, /usr/lib 
-> /usr/lib64, /lib32, and /usr/lib32).

> * Modular *.d/ directories - I'm pretty sure this is already covered in
> another thread, but it should be done by default where possible.
>

As mentioned elsewhere recently, this gives a lot of options, and in 
fact are required by a few packages in BLFS. I see absolutely no reason 
to omit this as the default using the instructions currently in BLFS as 
a guideline for strict conformance.

> * Anything else that I've missed
>
> -- DJ Lucas
>
-- DJ Lucas



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list