On 02/16/2014 01:52 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:52:58AM +0100, Armin K. wrote: >> On 02/15/2014 11:29 PM, Armin K. wrote: >>> On 02/15/2014 06:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> After akhiezer's thorough review of the FHS changes, I've narrowed >>>> things down to the following. >>>> >>>> The numbers refer to the version control patch number, as in: >>>> >>>> http://bzr.linuxfoundation.org/loggerhead/lsb/devel/fhs-spec/revision/<number> >>>> >>>> The comment and short description follow. Then are my comments. I'm in >>>> the process of rebuilding again with the libexec overrides removed. I >>>> still need to look at grub for LFS and possible addition of some >>>> directories in the 'Creating Directories' section, but otherwise, things >>>> are looking pretty good. >>>> >>>> -- Bruce >>> >>> I'd rather not. >>> >>> 1) It's a big change for this late in the cycle and such changes have >>> always be known to produce some problems later on (even minor ones) >>> because of hurry to implement them. >>> > > Agreed. In passing, I think the same thing about shared libs from > flex - for this release - because it needs more time to be worked > through. >
Well, it could be merged right after the stable release so there will be plenty of time to fix things. >>> 2) It's not declared stable, and thus it contradicts with B/LFS only >>> shipping stable software (/run was a must rather, else software wouldn't >>> work without it). >>> >> 3) No distro is using it yet except Fedora, which is playground for >> many things that we also don't use. I see no reason to rush here. >> > > LOL. RH and Fedora have always used libexec. I came from a Red > Hat (6,7) and then Mandrake background, so libexec has never > bothered me, and we started to use it in BLFS some time in the last > couple of years. I've also found a report showing ubuntu 13.04 is > using it: > http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/74646/difference-between-lib-lib32-lib64-libx32-and-libexec > Yeah, Fedora is playground for Red Hat anyways, at least that's why people call it. So it seems it's just Red Hat and its derivatives that use it, which makes sense since they invented it. From what I know, Debian, Ubuntu/Mint, ArchLinux, Gentoo (not sure though) don't use it yet. I don't know about openSUSE, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too were using it, but I don't bet that much on it. >>> Being it a big change, I'd suggest postponing it for a later release >>> then calling such release 8.x. >>> > > For this, I don't think it is a big enough change to call it 8.0 - > 7.0 came with totally rewritten bootscripts. > > ĸen > Yeah, was just a suggestion, I didn't think it was a rather big change for that. I suppose when LFS switches to systemd then it will be called LFS 8 and it will be on par with Windows 8 dictatorship (just kidding though). -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
