On 1.12.2014 18:18, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
On 01-12-2014 13:38, Armin K. wrote:
On 1.12.2014 16:30, John Burrell wrote:
It would be very nice if these two books had the same packages occupying
the same sections.
For the most part this is the case but I noticed that
Appstream-Glib-0.3.3
<http://linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/systemd/general/appstream-glib.html>
is in 'General Utilities' in BLFS-systemd
while
Appstream-Glib-0.3.1
<http://linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/systemd/general/appstream-glib.html>
is in 'Libraries' in KBLFS
This may seem trivial but if it's the thin end of a wedge, then you are
heading for chaos.
My script installs BLFS packages section by section and works well if
the packages and sections are consistent in each version of the book.
Gets tricky though if a package starts leaping around!
Trust you all enjoyed 'Black Friday' :-(
jb.
I'm not really sure if "General Utilities" was the correct category. It
contained a library and a command line utility to use that library
(analogue to libxml2 and xmllint, libxslt and xsltproc, icu and numerous
icu binaries, etc), that's why I moved it there.
I agree that there are many packages that don't really fit in the
categories they're in, but since this one was a new package when I
created the branch, I felt "General Libraries" was the right section
(because of what I mentioned about libxml2 and libxslt and what not).
I'd like to see what other editors think about this. It's not a big
deal, I can move it alright.
But, it shouldn't be an issue (and it isn't for me or anyone else it
seems) since I don't try to follow the systemd book anyways, so having
different instructions, packages or categories means nothing to me to be
honest.
When I added, put it in General Utilities. I could argue in the same
lines that the right place is there.
The only packages in general utilities section that also install a
library are:
Rarian: Installs way too many documentation utilities, so it seems that
the section is right.
ImageMagick: Not sure about this one. Maybe Graphical Libraries section
would suit it better, but I don't care much - fits there as it installs
many image handling utilities.
Html-Tidy: I could argue the same as for libxml2 and libxslt, but that
was put there way before I began editing BLFS.
Graphviz: Same as for ImageMagick.
rep-gtk: Looks like something for programming section since looking at
the contents, it doesn't contain a single utility.
The rest is a bunch of packages that install utilities for every day use.
Description of the "General Utilities"
This chapter contains various utilities that do not fit conveniently
into other chapters. Programs include a command line calculator, several
utilities for manipulating text and graphics, a program to interface
with a palm-pilot, a program for entering PIN numbers and pass-phrases,
and a hash generator.
I don't see how appstream-glib fits here.
But, looking at "General Libraries" description:
Libraries contain code which is often required by more than one program.
This has the advantage that each program doesn't need to duplicate code
(and risk introducing bugs), it just has to call functions from the
libraries installed on the system. The most obvious example of a set of
libraries is Glibc which is installed during the LFS book. This contains
all of the C library functions which programs use.
Dunno, still this one fits appstream-glib better (not appdata-tools).
But I prefer to tell that this question was posed about the time the
page was created. I asked if someone else but the interested ones could
decide, I would do whatever necessary. No reply. Then BLFS systemd moved
it to General Utilities, exactly because it didn't matter very much ,
not for me, not for the other editor.
I didn't know, that you, Armin, had moved it to another place, when you
created your personal book, becoming the only one different.
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-book/2014-October/048386.html
It was your
private personal unilateral decision. I'm affraid BLFS cannot be
responsible for other book editors decisions, although such kind of
modifications could deserve a discussion, if the different books want to
cooperate with each other.
It's an unofficial fork, hosted elsewhere entirely. Not something you
should bang your head about. I don't remember, but I thougt that I said
that issues for this fork go to either me directly or to github bug
(issue) tracker ... meh
In this case, it is not possible anymore, for obvious reasons.
This is a bad day.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
