[lfs-dev] resizecons : a proposal

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu May 17 14:53:23 PDT 2012


Ken Moffat wrote:

>>>  Silence is always very hard to interpret - this time, I've
>>> interpreted it as "don't care either way" - preview (kbd and
>>> changelog are the only changes) at
>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~ken/tmp/lfs-book-noresizecons/

>> I can't really comment since I don't use any non-default kbd functions.

>  Thanks, I hope I didn't offend you 

Not at all.  I just looked at it as casual conversation.

by describing that as "don't care
> either way" - I'm in the same position.  AFAICS, nobody using a
> recent kernel will use resizecons, so we will be better off without
> it (remembering that LFS can be small).
> 
>  Let's call my approach option 1.  The alternatives are to:
> 
> 2. remove the man page on everything except i?86 (for LFS itself,
> that means x86_64, but 'everything except' is a more accurate
> description for anyone trying to build LFS on other arches) - a
> slightly strange case statement for a sed to do this (using 'unless'
> would be the correct logical construct here, but let's keep it in
> /bin/sh),
> 
> 3. install it on x86_64 and reinstate svgalib in BLFS for those
> on i?86 or x86_64 who are determined to use it,
> 
> 4. note that the program is only installed on i?86 [ I suppose we
> could omit explaining why it is useless ] and that people on other
> arches can delete the man page if they want to.  This fits with
> upstream's Suse-influenced change in git to install the program on
> x86_64, but it doesn't make it useful.

Explanations are always useful.  I'd prefer more than less.  It helps to tell 
the user what is going on any why.  I'll defer to your judgment on the best way 
to handle it.

   -- Bruce



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list