On Tuesday 20 February 2007 06:35, Dan Nicholson wrote: <snip loads of stuff that lead to a discussion involving the following>:
1. POSIX compliant bootscripts - I'm all for this. If anyone wants to install a different shell as /bin/sh they should be able to without compromising their ability to boot their system without errors. Dan, did you know that dash(1) has a '-n' option: "If not interactive, read commands but do not execute them. This is useful for checking the syntax of shell scripts." This might make debugging/testing POSIX compatibility substantially quicker :-) 2. Parallel bootscripts. Whilst the benefits and drawbacks of doing this are unclear at the moment (or at least I think they are), I'm all for having these worked on until such a point where folks interested in it can come to the list with a hard-sell on why LFS should integrate them :-) If DJ and everyone else are happy with having them in contrib, that's fine by me. If you'd rather have a svn branch set up, just holler and it'll be yours. 3. Replace sysvinit. Again, I've not seen any convincing arguments why we'd want to do this but if someone wants to work on it then I can set up a branch for such work to be carried out. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
