On 02/21/2014 07:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Armin K. wrote: >> On 02/21/2014 06:01 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Armin K. wrote: >>> >>>> I'm only one person and keeping up with LFS which is at least 10 times >>>> smaller and making sure it's perfect is hard enough. >>> >>> That's an understatement. >>> >>>> BLFS requires >>>> modifications to more packages than the entire LFS has. Easiest approach >>>> would be for both instructions to co-exist, with some kinds of >>>> role="systemd" xml tags to indicate it's required for systemd and >>>> role=sysvinit to indicate it's required for sysv (mostly configuration >>>> parts). but I believe it has been said once that BLFS should not mix >>>> instructions for those two books, so I'm not going to try. >>> >>> I don't have a problem with using role to generate two versions of the >>> book from the same source. It will take a lot of up front work though. > >> No, it's not two versions of the book, but one version with "Do this if >> you are using sysvinit and do this if you are using systemd". I believe >> it was you who said that we shouldn't mix those when Ragnar suggested it >> back ... ugh long time ago anyways. > > What I said, or at least intended to say, was that users shouldn't be > constantly reminded that "if you have x, do y, otherwise z". I don't > have an objection to doing that in the source by developers and creating > the xsl to generate a 'standard' blfs version and a 'systemd' blfs version. > > -- Bruce >
I know what you meant. I have no problems with shipping package specific notes for now. Maintaining seperate BLFS is something I can't do alone and maintaining same instructions in one branch, then generating two different books is something I don't know a) to do b) if it's possible. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
