El Jueves, 13 de Julio de 2006 20:38, George Boudreau escribió:
> > .- Looks like now the LFS bootscripts don't install
> > /etc/sysconfdir/console (not sure about CLFS and HLFS bootscripts). We
> > need to change the code to install a default configuration file. That
> > could need also some "nodump" in the XML.
>
> I will look at this problem in a few hours and get back to you..
Thanks.
> > .- I would to change the book's sources checkout to can download any
> > branch or tagged version. That will avoid the need to change a lot of
> > code each time that a new branch/tag is supported or unsupported, but
> > implies that we must to add a TXT file (and/or an HTML file in the web
> > site) listing supported versions by current trunk or jhalfs packages.
>
> I assume you want this change so we can handle the proliferation of
> CLFS branches. CLFS, CLFS-2 and the future CLFS embedded. This may take
> a while.
The idea is to can handle -preX book's releases without the need to create a
new jhalfs-1.0-preX tarball. For example, CLFS-1.0-pre1 was in fact supported
by jhalfs (before the LFS_xxx to CLFS_xxx envars change) but never oficially
supported.
I.e, when we release jhalfs-1.0-pre1 it should be able to download and try to
build all {,C,H}LFS-{SVN,stable_version,preX_version,branch} current and
future books, keeping on a separate "SUPPORTED BOOKS" file what book's
versions are actually usable with that jhalfs tarball version.
If some bug is found in jhalfs-1.0-pre1, or there is some book change that
implies a code change, then we will release jhalfs-1.0-pre2, updating the
"SUPPORTED BOOKS" file.
Now suposse that CLFS-1.0 is realeased is released before LFS-6.2. We will
release jhalfs-1.0 to support CLFS-1.0, but it will support also LFS-6.2 when
released if no incompatibilities has been found. Only updating that
"SUPPORTED BOOKS" file will be enought.
> I agree but this could delay a 1.0 release. I have not looked at the
> BLFS experiment code in a while and and am not sure what state it is in.
No changes from four weeks ago. We don't need a working solution, only
something to allow testers to play with. If we can have something before
CLFS-1.0 and/or LFS-6.2 releases, good.
> Now that you mentioned it - README.BLFS - Could be use a README.xxx
> for the different books rather than just a single readme doc. It could
> grow as people bring up 'confusion' issues.
Yes, a separate README for each module, included ICA/farce and optimization
modules, will be nice, but not a release blocker.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
