On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 21:24, Jean-Marc Pigeon via lfs-dev <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lets be blunt here, ;) Why? I think we are expressing the same sentiment, although I'd add a couple of observations to your points, if I may. > Are you telling to us?, you blindly follow all book directives and > you were successful first strike? Amazing! Bravo! (I really mean it, > I was not successful my first time) Not sure that's relevant to any "Should the Books have a project management section" discussion? When I first tried out LFS, there were a number of errors in the commands, however, over the years, these have been ironed out and I'd suggest that the current books are much more "correct", as a result of the approach that is taken to producing them - that is, the XML schemas, the use of entities to abstract package details and so on. The Books, viewd as a project, are really well constructed now, indeed it's fairly simple to combine bits of LFS and BLFS in the same book (* see below) Yes there will always be the chance of an error creeping in when a package is updated, or if package creep occurs and a new package is added, but these just get reported to the mailing list - so hardly a full blown project management execise. > - Did you notice 8.2 and 9.0-rc are not including the same > packages, neither they are assembled in the same order? Actually, as one of the people who strived to get away from the default package ordering (more or less alphabetcial once a core set of packages had been installed) when the SysV and SysD books started to diverge, yes I am aware of that. > You seem to be confused "project management skill" and "package > management tools". No: I will happily claim that I am not confusing the two. My approach to "package management" can be seen here (* from above) http://youvegotbuckleys.org.nz/LFS/LFS-BOOK.html whereas I consider taking a "project management" approach to building an LFS system to be something extra, something that an individual chooses to do, above and beyond following the instructions in the Books. Again, I come back to the idea that the Books, if followed, are a self-contained whole that will give the implementer a working system. However, if an implemneter wants to place other "project management" techniques around their build (After all - Your distro: your rules) then great - but that is "something extra". > The thing I try to share with Akira, LFS is big and interesting > project, worth the effort. As I said, In complete agreement with that, just not the original assertion about there being a "major shortcoming", vis: > Because I think consider a major shortcoming of > the current LFS Book is failure to discuss project management, as I think that does the Books, and the LFS project as a whole, a major disservice. Kevin -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
