On Sunday 19 October 2008 15:56:57 Petr Cerny wrote: > You mean like checking, that the patch has a short short comment header > and whether the patch applies (more or less, but preferably more) > flawlessly to the source?
Yes. > Do I get it right, that the basic idea is having heavily commented > scripts from which the Book can be generated? Yes. > For paging through the > script, it might be nice to have something generate ANSI coloured > version (modified rules for enscript would be an option). Sounds good. > As for gpm and web browser: you usually build LFS from a comfortable > distro. Once you reboot, it's perfectly fine to chroot to the original > distro on a number of VTs, so you have both the environment where you > build without depending on the old installation and a fully-fledge > system for anything else during the lengthy compilations (you can even > chroot back into the the booted root, so you can create the HLFS almost > completely from X). Well, theoretically. But the systems may differ enough for the host not to run on new kernel or without properly executed rc sequence. I usually had problems with SuSE. Debian and it's clones are, however, much more usable from chroot. > Considering the nature of HLFS (that is having a secure system), it > seems to make more sense having someone to review all patches before > applying them to the tree, not just let anyone to apply a fix - no > matter how trivial it may seem. I've put it wrong. Changes from unauthorized people would always get reviewed before applying. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
