> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 21:16:01 -0700 > From: Bryan Kadzban <br...@kadzban.is-a-geek.net> > To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org> > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Major changes in -dev > > > > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I did have a private email with a volunteer to write a hint. If I get > > that, I'll add a note in the systemd section that points there. > > I saw a commit mail to -book that added the hint link. > > However, if someone (like me...) *really really* doesn't want systemd, and > knows it from the get-go, shouldn't they avoid building all the other junk > like libacl / libattr / expat / *dbus* / etc., too? The current list of > packages that are only necessary because systemd was added are in the hint, > but how do we keep those packages in that state? > > Because now that all this stuff is present, I can see a whole lot of changes > that don't realize they're adding even more dependence on these libraries, > because the libs are there in all the testing, which follows the book. For > any such change, I would rather default to not making it than force the extra > libraries, although what to actually do depends on what each change is and > which library in particular it needs. > > (dbus can go jump off a cliff with its abort() calls from a library, crashing > the X server and breaking video hardware. expat is annoying but not quite so > much as dbus. libacl/libcap and whatever else are at least small and simple, > but having e.g. acl support in coreutils seems like it has some side effects > that aren't clear yet.) >
There was some discussion on this lately - e.g.: -- >R1931 To LFS Developers Fri Mar 28 20:54 138/5844 Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts >about LFS and systemd -- http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.devel/15056 -- , concerning inter alia parametrising the build for sysd yes/no. But it seems that it's only the 'runtime' that's parametrised. ( And all done directly on main branch ... . ) As noted in the thread, I guess there may be some mitigation via the 'Dependencies' appendix. But otherwise, yes, with current lfs, you're not quite getting sysd per-se shoved down your throat: it's 'just' the 'experiment with sysd' stuff, that's essentially enforced - or at least, for some 'reason', made not easy to side-step, via e.g. some pretty simple parametrising. (( Meantime, here, internally we'll continue to param (auto-)builds properly; and if/when sysd ever gets included in such auto-suite, then its deps-chain will be parametrised properly too. )) rgds, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
