Use of Entities in the cross-lfs book

Archaic archaic at
Tue Jun 21 13:49:14 PDT 2005

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:21:27PM +0200, wrote:
> To place entities on the files headers isn't a good idea for LFS, IMHO.

Please explain what is not good about having all package-specific
entities in one place.

> I think that Jim is proposing that new packages.ent to can do packages 
> updates, when no commands changes are needed, editing only the *.ent  and 
> changelog files.

Same thing happens here. I proposed they all go into either packages.ent
or general.ent. Either way, the actual instructions xml won't have to be

> Some packages, like Glibc and GCC, will require several blocks like that, one 
> for each time that the package is builded.

And those same blocks would be required whether or not the entity is
defined here or in the package's main xml page. This way centralizes
things and seems to allow for easier editing.

> > <!ENTITY package-patch_name-patch "package-&package-version;-foo-1.patch">
> Not sure about this. I see more easy to handle patches agrupped by arch, like 
> they are currently in patches.ent.

I'm not overly committed to the grouping scheme, so perhaps they should
be grouped separately.

> Also, we don't need to declare the new packages.ent file on each XML file. Is 
> enouch declaring it in general.ent (the same is valid for patches.ent).

I'm not sure where that came from since I didn't suggest it.

> In general that look like a good idea. Could do more easy simple packages 
> updates.

That's the hope, anyway. :)


Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list