Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Thanks for the effort DJ. Sure, but thank Dan. His new package made the bootscripts target obtainable in LFS, whereas all other current implementations cannot. I've wanted the LSB changes to be put in place for a long time. > If I ever get some time away from work, I want to put > in some effort to make LFS and BLFS compatible with the LSB. It's really not > that far away now. I will start with a section in LFS explaining exactly > what > LSB compliance is any why someone would want it. I was toying about this the other day, and didn't come up with anything that sounded professional. LFS alone obviously cannot be fully LSB compliant. As Alexander suggested, '...add facilities that help installation of LSB packages without using the words "conform" or "comply" in relation to (B)LFS and LSB...' Maybe "LSB aware" or maybe even something small at first, like the FHS Compliance Note, where a description is given of items that go against the spec. I had also planned to review the cron requirements to see if fcron can be beat into shape to work as required. This after I do a little more in the LFS playground.
As far as Dan's initd-tools for the bootscripts, they are working great! AFAICT, pending a patch I sent tonight (or a possible alternate fix), there is only one remaining wrinkle to iron out and they will be good to go. I've given them a pretty thorough workout over the past couple of days. After correcting several of my illogical dependencies in the contrib bootscripts, I tested Dan's tools on my main dev system which is loaded up pretty heavily. The comparison against a static copy was flawless after several removals, adds, moves, changes, etc. Needless to say, the reboot was uneventful (a very good thing). -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
