> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:20:08 +0100
> From: "Armin K." <[email protected]>
> To: BLFS Development List <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] BLFS Systemd Additions
>
        .
        .
>
> There are different ways than with playing with xsl (shell subsitutions
> and such, generating .xml files from .xml.in files using templates) but


((We here completely bypass xml; much saner with just a lean BNF spec
(incl e.g. don't-type-anything-twice), & use lex/yacc on it to e.g. wrap
all the (repetitive) build structure around it. (Also, really, do folks
still e.g. edit dates manually in b/lfs xml ... ; that's nuts.) ))


> given that some already say that they wouldn't like systemd and sysv
> instructions in the same repository, I didn't speak up. As for


I'd say that that - i.e. not mixing the repos yet - is probably prudent
_overall_, for the time being at least - separate repos like for lfs,
but kept substantially in-sync; and seeing a bit further down the line,
if merging is feasible; and meantime you _do_ have a functioning ongoing
sysd-blfs book.


> maintenance, it would be still the same. systemd specific instructions
> are mostly related to bootscript part in more than 70% of the packages
> anyways so that wouldn't need to be touched for the time being.
>


That's partly why the original suggestion, that _instead_ - not additional
to, but instead - of the time/resource spend that you did for the 'free-form'
text/wiki notes, why not use that _same_ chunk of time/resource *instead*
-- not additional to, but instead -- and keep your notes as changes to the
blfs-7.4 xml, and publish those changes as sets of patches. You don't need
to undertake any more burden than that. Those patch-sets would, I'm sure,
be by far an even more helpful resource to folks than the text/wiki notes
already are.


rgds,
akh


> -- 
> 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

Reply via email to