Commits to SVN

DJ Lucas dj at
Thu Oct 2 05:23:08 PDT 2008

DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This is mostly to DJ, and FYI for everyone else.
>> I've got many commits ready to go and I didn't want us to
>> be conflicting with one another. Do you want me to do the
>> updates. I've got package updates and textual updates as
>> well, all ready to go.
>> Let me know.
>> However, I've got a question about two things.
>> 1. What we're going to do about the man/man-db/groff-utf8
>> issues? Which direction should LFS go in the *immediate*
>> future? I installed man-db in my new build, and it appears
>> to work okay for English man pages. I really don't have
>> any way (or knowledge how to) check UTF8 pages.
>> 2. What are we going to do about Bootscripts? The LSB
>> scripts don't work with the BLFS bootscripts. This also
>> brings the initd-tools package into question.
>> I suggest we hold off on any commits until we determine
>> the direction of the above two issues.
> Sure, if you've had time to test all the changes.  I was going through a 
> manual build to clear up a couple of left over items (gcc fixincludes, 
> man-db, new dependencies for Appendix C, etc.)
> I think most important is to get the package updates in place.  
> Following on from Colin's comments, I think we should stick with the 
> updated man-db package and the debian groff package for now.  In fact, 
> I'd leave man-db and groff alone for the moment.  The convert-mans stuff 
> is obsoleted by the newer man-db package, but it doesn't hurt anything 
> and can stay for now rather than English editors guessing at the text 
> encoding of the files.  I plan to look at the various distros backports 
> of the preconv additons to groff at some point in the future.
> For the bootscripts, I think the LSB changes are on hold for now, this 
> would include initd-tools as well because it will not work without 
> adding headers to the existing scripts or migrating to the new scritps 
> (or putting in some hack for the dependencies).  After we get all of the 
> big updates in place, then we can discuss the LSB changes again.
> -- DJ Lucas
One more thing, the gcc private includes.  I was only joking when I 
posted that the other day, but it might actually help users until we get 
to going in BLFS if we did create our own limits.h file in the private 
include directory.  Did you run into the missing limits.h when building 
OpenSSL?  I don't know what else will need patches yet.

-- DJ Lucas

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list