Future of LFS - scripts and licenses
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed May 21 21:07:35 PDT 2008
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> 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
> 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.
That is the purpose.
> However it gets very tedious to have to copy and paste them into an actual
That is not the purpose.
> 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.
Yes. That too.
> 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
I don't think so. Patches are code and we certainly don't publish the code of
all the packages. Some of the patches are not developed by us, but are from
upstream or Debian or some other resource. Besides, the patches are not very
meaningful without the code that is being changed.
> 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.
Yes, yes, yes. I agree.
> 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 do think we should add the udev scripts also.
> I think it should be an addition, not a replacement.
Yes. That was my intention.
More information about the lfs-dev