Le 05/07/2014 15:43, Armin K. a écrit : > On 06/29/2014 09:55 PM, Armin K. wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> As you could see, few moments ago I've commited a "systemd2" branch, >> which contains a prototype of how I would try to create and maintain >> BLFS systemd book from single (fsvo single) xml source hierarchy. >> >> So how would I achieve that? >> >> Since there are far more packages that don't require any modifications >> for either systemd or systemv, it would be a bit overkill to maintain a >> separate branch, especially since it's impossible to keep up with Fernando. >> >> I know this has been rejected in the past, but here I go again. Chris >> gave me an idea of having two different "chapter" files (the ones that >> contain all xincludes from a chapter) and let the "make" process decide >> which one should be used. >> >> So the idea would be to have: >> >> postlfs/security/security.xml.systemv >> postlfs/security/security.xml.systemd >> >> The first one would be the same as postlfs/security/security.xml >> currently is, just renamed. >> >> Packages that require modifications for systemd would be renamed to do >> that, ie >> >> postlfs/security/polkit.xml would be for systemv setup >> postlfs/security/polkit-systemd.xml would be for systemd setup >> >> The second one would be referenced in >> postlfs/security/security.xml.systemd mentioned above. >> >> This would require a small change to BLFS top level Makefile as well as >> renaming the chapter files in the current book. I have commited the >> "systemd2" branch for prototyping the chapter "Security". >> >> Only thing that would change for editors is to make sure they use >> chapter.xml.systemv or chapter.xml.systemd instead of chapter.xml for >> inclusion of new packages. >> >> Comments? >> > > It has been a week since I sent this out and I haven't got a single > clear "yes" or "no" from any of the current developers. Should I give up > hopes on this? > > Thanks and sorry for the noise. > I am not among the most active developers, so I did not think I should say yes or no... I guess I could adapt to your set up. The only time I have thought about systemd is when I updated the initramfs page. I have tried to have the generated files OK for both SYS V ans systemd.
Let me just say what I understand: (a) when updating a package: - if there is no systemd specifics, the editor only updates the page as usual. - if there is some systemd specifis (for example --without-systemdunitdir or so), the editor updates the non systemd part as usual for SYS V. - question is: how to let the systemd editors know about the update? specific ticket? Not closing the initial ticket until both SYSV and systemd updated? or else? (b) when adding a package: - if there is no systemd specifics, the editor adds the page as usual, but updates both chapter files - if there is some systemd specifics, the editor adds the page and only updates the SYSV chapter file. Again there should be a way to let the systemd editors know about that... Now, what if the update or addition is done by a systemd editor? Roughly the same as above, just exchanging SYSV and systemd... So for me, the only missing thing is a protocol about the way both sets of editors communicate. I realize there could be also some issue about archiving pages, but I do not think it is serious... Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
