Reorganizing the book

dj dj at
Sun Mar 21 13:19:06 PST 2004

Aite...forgive the crappy quoting...I'm using webmail and the archives.

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:

>>> One objection. This lowers the educational value of the book. One
>>> understands the script when he reads it (e.g. before copying and 
>>> pasting), not while he blindly types an obscure command to install 
>>> it.

Randy wrote:

>> I tend to agree with this. Using an install-<init-script> routine
>> totally blinds the builder from understanding the init process
>> (should it be new territory for him).

Tushar Teredesai wrote:

> Then shouldn't the scripts be also included in the LFS book? Surely 
> the init scripts included there have more educational value than the 
> ones in 
> the BLFS.
> I think sometime around LFS-3.x, it was decided  that it was better 
> to seperate out the scripts from the book and create a seperate 
> package.
> The statement in the Perl package is because as long as the auto 
> module installation works perfectly it is ok. But if things need to 
> be patched, it creates problems.

Some of the scripts exceed 76 (IIRC) chars on one line.  While there is 
nothing wrong with this, Vim, as setup in .vimrc in BLFS, has a tendacy 
to wrap lines at around this value.  The scripts are already hidden in 
LFS for this very reason, among others.  The book reads much, much 
better, and is less error prone using the installs for bootscripts.  
Now, having said that, we should suggest that each installed script be 
reviewed by the user.  Maybe the boot process should be rehashed on the 
LFS Boot Scripts page also.  Comments?

-- DJ Lucas

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list