Future of LFS - scripts and licenses

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed May 21 20:50:07 PDT 2008


> OK, take a look at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/lfs-book/

Looked at it and gave it the last few days to think about it some more.

I'm a bit conflicted about this but there may be an easy solution to it.

No matter what ends up happening, the scripts definitely can be better 
documented.

Adding the scripts to the book as you have done (and how we used to do 
it in LFS a while back) makes them more easily accessible to review. 
However it gets very tedious to have to copy and paste them into an 
actual script.

We could still provide the package for installation as we do now. Having 
them in a chapter or appendix would just be a bonus - we can add extra 
information that doesn't belong as long winded comments in the actual 
scripts.

Now it brings up the following question. If we add the bootscripts to an 
appendix, we should do the same with the patches and explain those 
better as well.

That counter-argument could include facts like: patches are really only 
interesting to programmers whereas bootscripts are important to every 
linux system admin, programmer and non-programmer alike. Therefore 
bootscripts are better candidates for such inclusion.

I largely agree with that last statement. Just thought I'd bring it up 
anyway to get it out there.


-----

I think the consensus we're trying to reach is what to do with the 
bootscripts if we do add them back to an Appendix as Bruce suggested. Do 
we still install the bootscripts the current way or does the appendix 
become a *replacement* for the bootscript package installation in chapter 7.


I think it should be an addition, not a replacement.

Gerard



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list