Nicolas FRANCOIS wrote:
Le Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:55:28 +0000 Reece Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a
écrit :
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tapio Kelloniemi wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 09:25:18AM -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
No, it's not - it is completely unnecessary. $LFS/sources is only
mentioned once in LFS (well, ok, twice...), and even then it's really
just a suggestion - the source directory could be anywhere and called
anything you like, and no package instructions in either LFS or BLFS
refer to any source dir specifically anyway.
This could be one more reason to unify the unpacking and buid
instructions !
What about this (just one example among others). This command can be found
from the SVN LFS book in one of the GCC sections:
patch -Np1 -i ../gcc-4.1.1-specs-1.patch
I don't think that it is too hard to understand that the path to the gcc patch
should
point to where it is located on your system. If you can't grasp that, should
you really
be building LFS?
Djezus, what did I start ! Listen guys, I didn't want to engage in such a
war, and frankly speaking, I don't understand why you are so aggressive
about this idea. You like it or you don't like it, and I'm OK with that.
But why being rude with someone trying to better explain the point of a
silly french user speaking pidgin english ?
"If you can't grasp that, should you really be building LFS?" !!! Listen
to you ! You should be ashamed. The point was totally different. Putting
all the sources in a directory and unpacking in this same directory is
not very practical, so I was proposing something different. I currently
use the simple way of copying what I need in the /sources directory, but
I think it could be a little more automated in the book. You don't like
it, fine. You explain to me why it is not a good thing for the project,
even better. But arguments like "I do things differently, so I think what
you propose is silly" are in my point of view irrelevant.
You have not done a sufficient job of explaining why it's not practical.
Nobody else has had problems with that before - this is the first time I
have ever seen anyone make this "suggestion". Also, the LFS book itself
*does* basically say that you should not even begin thinking about
building LFS until you have a basic minimal level of Unix/Linux
knowledge, so saying "If you cannot do _______ you should not be
attempting LFS at all" is completely justified in many circumstances.
This command is to be executed in the gcc-4.1.1 directory and the command
works if, and only if, the patch file is in the directory just above
this gcc-4.1.1 directory. I never have built an LFS system, where I could
have used this command as it is in the book. IMHO all commands that often
need modification, should be marked as such, eg.
patch -Np1 -i [your source directory]/gcc-4.1.1-specs-1.patch
I think that would complicate matters. All that is required is a line when
discussing
the $LFS/source directory is to say something like "This book assumes that the
tarballs are extracted in the $LFS/source directory." That way, the LFS book is
consistent.
If you really want, you can add something to the effect of "You can choose to
place
the source files in a directory of your choosing, but you need to adjust the
paths
accordingly." However, I think that this is too much. I would put it under the
category of "things you need to know and understand before reading the LFS
book".
Once again, it's not a matter of knowing what has to be done for the
patch to be correctly used ! I've built about a dozen LFS system, I know
how to apply a patch !!! And if I don't, I know how to look in the man
pages. And everyone building a LFS system is aware of that, I think !
It's just a matter of automating things a little more !
And that is the problem right there. LFS is NOT about automating in the
first place - it is supposed to act as a guide for teaching how to build
a Linux system, not how to make it easier for lazy users to automate.
Then unpack your source tarballs wherever you like. I still see no
reason to change what's in the book, as I do have all the source and
patches in one dir and have no problems doing it that way. Besides, why
would you need to use "rm -rf gcc-*" to remove the GCC source and build
dirs? It's not that difficult to add the extra "4.0.3" or "build" to the
dir name (or use bash's tab completion to make it really easy). Don't
forget you could also use "tar tf" to list the files in a tarball, or
"tar xvf" for a verbose listing that tells you exactly what's being
unpacked and what directory it's all going into.
I think everyone knows how to use bash completion, thanks !
Actually, you'd be surprised how many people use Linux for a while
without knowing stuff like that (I built LFS at least 3 or 4 times
before I learned about bash tab completion)...
I use a perl script that does the same thing as:
cd /build
tar -xf /packages/$PACKAGE/$PACKAGE-$VERSION.tar.*
cd `ls`
/packages/$PACKAGE/$PACKAGE # run the build script
cd /build
rm -r *
This works very well for me. It is actually a bit more complicated than that,
but that is the general idea. When applying a patch, I refer to it explicitly
as /packages/$PACKAGE/[...].patch.
As pointed by another lecture^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmail, your knowledge of Unix
habits is far from perfect, so don't consider you are the only one
knowing how to use it !
Calm down - he is not trying to show off - he is just giving some ideas,
and again, a lot of people might *not* necessarily think of that idea so
he is just trying to share his knowledge.
Adding a $SOURCEDIR variable where none is needed is just adding another
level of user hand-holding to the book (and there's already enough as it
is). I do not see any point to changing the instructions.
There I see something that is worth a little explanation. I don't read
ALL the mails from thoses lists, so maybe I missed something. Is it a
widely shared impression from the "LFS bosses" that the knowledge of
books users tend to diminish to the point where the calls on the lists
show that people couldn't handle one more variable ?
Yes - the problem is that a lot of people build LFS without even
possessing the minimal basic Linux knowledge and asking dozens of
questions that are already answered in the book. The book is already
easy enough to follow as it is, yet many people still don't pay
attention to what's there now.
I agree. The instructions are clear as they are.
LFS User: 17921
I too have a number, but can't remember what it is. And LFS site still
down :-( So, all I can say : first LFS system : 3.0 ;-)
\bye
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
