Matt Darcy wrote:
Hi all,
Now I've laid down my request lets look at the topics, that in my mind
are unclear and up for dicussion.
2.) Udev - This again has been a hot topic of many projects, but with
LFS now dropping hotplug I feel it important ti discuss and clear up a
few areas
a.) Udev rules - how complete/incomplete should they be
Base LFS should just have rules for devices that can be used on a base
LFS system. Anything that needs extra software (like ALSA for sound
cards) should also have udev rules for those devices in BLFS.
b.) which project cover which rules eg; lfs base only, blfs additional,
clfs base+additional archs devices ? that sort of thing
Mainly BLFS, with LFS having only a minimal set to start with. Part of
the point of LFS is education, and I don't think it's very educational
to just let users install a single file with every single possible rule
(plus I generally think a base system should be minimal anyway...).
c.) what are the livecd doing with udev - removing hotplug ? what rules
are they using ? etc
d.) Should we all use the same rules lfs/livecd/cross-lfs/hlfs even ?
Yes, except where that isn't really possible (as Patrakov mentioned with
the livecd in particular).
3.) users and group creation, I'm reluctant to touch on this again as I
know its close to a few individuals hearts and a lot of time has been
put into this, but due to the ude discussion I think its worth at least
touching upon.
a.) do we define uuid/gid for users in LFS - I don't think this is an
option and has to be done
b.) how does blfs address this, does it specify uid/gid per user, does
it speficy users and let the user map the uid/gid - does it do nothing
and just you need an "X" user with X permissions
c.) how do the uid's/gid's tie in with udev rules ? for all projects
d.) do all projects use a unifrorm set of uid/gids and if so -how to we
acomplish this?
e.) other uid/gid points
Basically same as with udev rules - just define a minimal set of users
and groups in {C,H}LFS, and have BLFS define additional users and groups
where needed.
On a final note, I know this has been said to individuals before, and I
preach a lot about it, but I'm hoping that with this discussion there is
a real potential to bring all the projects closer together and more
"agreed" on the direction the overall project is taking, even if
projects go their own ways on things, at least it will be understood
that X is doing it different because of X + Y and perhaps we can start
sharing across-project information better and work as a bigger group
better.
Apologies if this mail seems to spell out the obvious, but I'd really
like to say it public and try to get a consensus where everyone working
say "yes, I understand this is what we are all doing - even if I don't
agree"
thanks,
Matt
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
