On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > Anyway, if no rewriten is necessary, then please remove the rewriting > entirely. No 'cat foo.in > foo' please. That's nonsense. That command is for conisity with the other initscript makefiles. >> >> 2. And also, I forgot to make symlinks to the bootscript in the >> >> makefile, because that is what LFS does. So I added the ln commands to >> >> make the symlinks. >> > >> > We dn't create those link farms on any distribution. Activating init >> > services is a job for the administrator, not for 'make install'. > Yes, that's classic SysV init. Like almost every distro still does > it. And we don't create those link farms on any distro. Well, 'any distro' is a bit too general. > Sure. But that's why folks invented package managers. We don't create > those symlinks for any distro because creating those links is a job > for a package manager, not for install scripts. Well, MOST FREAKING LFS USERS DON'T PUT A PACKAGE MANAGER ON THEIR LFS DISTRO!!!!! This is why I'm creating the symlinks in the 'make install' command. > Also, creating those links manually is almost certainly wrong. Every > distro has a tool that manages that automatically for you. I'm not shure there is a thing like that in a LFS system. > Also, I thought the point of LFS was to do everything manually, wasn't > it? Yea, mainly, but there's also ALFS (Automated Linux From Scratch), and the {B}LFS-bootscripts create symlinks to the bootscript for you.
Oh, and the 'link farm' thing? LFS does that because it wants to make things more organized. William _______________________________________________ avahi mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/avahi
