[lfs-dev] Feedback on patch idea

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Mar 15 10:58:24 PDT 2015

brent s. wrote:
> Hash: SHA512
> Hello all!
> A lot of work has been put into LFS- I did my last install about 3 years
> ago, and doing a refresher install now- and it's much easier to use now
> and does a fantastic job explaining the ideas behind it.
> However, I was wondering if anyone had any feedback. To "give back" to
> the project, I'd like to submit some patches.

You can certainly do that here.

> Nothing major, mostly just simplifying commands. For example:
> 5.5 GCC-4.9.2 (in 20150219 build of the SystemD LFS), the second code
> block contains:
> for file in \
> ...
>    cp -uv $file{,.orig}
>    sed -e 's@/lib\(64\)\?\(32\)\?/ld@/tools&@g' \
>        -e 's@/usr@/tools at g' $file.orig > $file
> ...
> The type of patch I'd submit would convert that to the cleaner (and thus
> easier to read):
> ____________________
> sed -i.orig -re 's@/lib(64)?(32)?/ld@/tools&@g ;\
>                   s@/usr@/tools at g' $file
> ____________________

I agree that your construct is cleaner.  However, we do try to offer alternative 
ways to do things as a learning tool.  For instance, we do use the alternative 
in Section 6.18. Bzip2-1.0.6.

> Are these sorts of "improvements" welcome (being that style is a pretty
> subjective thing)? If so, I can work on a patch but if not, I didn't
> want to waste my nor another's time.

Sure, they're welcome.  For something as easy as that we don't really need a 
patch though.

> Additionally, if such changes were welcome, is it generally preferred to
> have one large unified patch or a series of smaller patches?

For LFS, I do most of the changes, so posting here in either format is welcome. 
  However I suggest discussion first before you go to the effort of creating a 

    -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list