Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/01/06 19:35 CST: > I took a look at the changes you committed. These are my initial reactions:
Thank you for taking the time out to review the commit, and provide comment. If I make any argument against what you've said below, know that it is not because I take offense to your being critical of the work, but instead because I actually disagree. Healthy disagreement is good, being disagreeable is bad. I am guilty of the latter on occasion. > DBus: We need to consider moving GLib and possibly Pyrex to recommended > dependencies to provide more default functionality. This also means > that we need to add Pyrex to the book. GLib I can see, as it is a package that is so common throughout BLFS. However, I'll have to disagree with Pyrex. It is only needed if you want to build the D-BUS Python bindings, that for now are only needed if you want the hal-device-manager program to run. And this takes *so* much overhead that installing Pyrex on your own is a walk in the park compared to installing GNOME-Python. Please keep in mind that Pyrex doesn't do anything, unless you install all that GNOME-Python stuff as well. So, my argument being that if you make Pyrex a recommended dep, then you need to make GNOME-Python recommended as well. There is no difference. They both provide the same functionality. Are you willing to go there? > We do need to upload the Pyrex source to the mirrors and reference that > until the home site is fixed. Evidently the author is/was a student at > the University of Canterbury. I can find no reference to the author on > the school roster. I agree here. I have a copy if nobody else does and would be happy to make it available to Justin so he can install it and sync it on all the mirrors. > HAL: The run time dependencies section is unique to BLFS. It is > probably necessary for proper explanation. I didn't know how else to properly do that GNOME-Python thing. It is a beast. Keep in mind that this is what you want to make Pyrex recommended for. Are you sure you want to do this? > I do not agree with the note in the Configuration Information section. > I think it is unnecessary and, if followed, actually make the file less > readable due to the very long line lengths that will result. I don't agree, nor disagree. I only did it because the default HAL files in /usr/share/hal all are one-liners. We copy these files making the one in /etc. And they really aren't that long and are a helluva lot easier to read on one line. The method used by BLFS make our file different than the maintainers. That is why I provided instructions to make it the same. I really have no preference and the file as put in BLFS works. I've tested it. So, if you'd like the note removed, just say so. Again, thanks for your comments. I probably spent too much time on HAL, but I can't help but think that it will be a significant part of BLFS in a short period of time and we need to have it right. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 19:40:01 up 99 days, 5:04, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.21 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
