On 22/05/2016 23:18, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 05/22/2016 02:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
akhiezer wrote:
From: "Douglas R. Reno" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 20:04:32 -0600
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS systemd-specific stuff
On 5/20/2016 12:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Douglas R. Reno wrote:
.
.
Also different:
Chapter 3, but perhaps we can just agree to list all the files from
both
books there -- I think just systemd and dbus are added from the
systemd
book, but I'm not sure. There may be something in the preface and
introduction too, but I haven't looked.
That is correct. I just looked through the Introduction and Preface:
chapter01/how.xml
is different. I agree on listing all the files from both books there.
Do you mean, that the _rendered_ books both just have the same
'file-list'
&c content:
--
* if yes, then would you give any indication of which items belonged to
which book:
** if yes, then that'd 'violate' your if-then-else declaration
(per e.g.
below);
** if no, then that's not good info for users of the books - not
very
educational, likely confusing, and likely to cause much
repeated q&a
list-traffic.
--
It's a work in progress to validate a new process for the editors.
There would be nothing really inconsistent to specify a full set of
packages (trunk + systemd + dbus) and just not use the files needed for
the book being used.
Minimal use of dual profiles (<phrase>) (mentioned previously) would
eliminate that, but BLFS is completely different than LFS in this
respect. In LFS, it's not a big deal to keep separate pages for the
12(? best guess) places where they differ significantly (3 removed and
two added for sysd, 2 removed 3 added for trunk IIRC, plus chapter 7).
I think we'd have, what, 5 <phrase> entries in the what's new page in
LFS. It's a one time change and wouldn't affect editors in the least.
A merged changelog for LFS would affect editors' workflow, which is
probably why it was overlooked last time I suggested it. In BLFS, many
pages would be littered with them, potentially one for each page that
installs a bootscript or unit for example (although, that particular
example might be able to be handled by an entity). And then we have
jhalfs, which I'm not sure if it uses the raw source or first pass. I
don't know a lot about the inner workings of jhalfs.
jhalfs uses the raw sources for LFS, but the first pass for BLFS (with
significant performance increase, since the xincludes take forever).
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
