Future of LFS (Other comments)
alanslists at gmail.com
Mon May 19 01:09:35 PDT 2008
Here's a few further comments "for the record".
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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!
More information about the lfs-dev