On 07/05/2014 05:31 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote: > 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?
This should work as it always worked. However, it would be a good idea to share "xml headers" (like in LFS via packages.ent) for packages that are different for different init system, so there would be no need for duplicate entries. As I said, at least 75% of all updates only modify xml header (size, md5sum, url, sbu and such) so if that's shared, a package would get updated for both books. > (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... > For now, you could just add the page for init system you use and leave the rest for someone who uses the other one. But if you feel like no modification regarding init systems is necessary, you can go ahead and enable it for both books. > Now, what if the update or addition is done by a systemd editor? Roughly the > same as above, just exchanging SYSV and systemd... > Right. > 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... > Well, you can simply comment it out in chapter file for necessary init system and it's as good as archived. > Pierre > -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
