Re: [lfs-support] Potential damage of $LFS/tools setting in section 4.2 and 4.3 of LFS book.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 11:12 AM Bruce Dubbs wrote: > On 3/19/19 2:25 AM, niuneilneo wrote: > > As described in the title, the $LFS/tools setting could be harmful for > > the current linux distros. Because there already exists /tools folder in > > current Debian/Ubuntu distros, and it is not possible to correctly set > > the symlink between the $LFS/tools and /tools. Even if I brutally delete > > the /tools folder, and set the symlink, the host system will complain > > that "Too many levels of symbolic links" for simple commands like tar, > > and all LFS operations following will not be able to execute. > > > > I wonder this problem is caused by the dead cycle between the /tools and > > $LFS/tools. So I suggest totally remove this setting or warn user not to > > set this variable when some host distros default have /tools in their > > root folder. > > We need to verify this. What specific version of Debian has /tools? > LFS has used /tools for almost 20 years. I think it is unlikely that > Debian started to use it. > Debian Testing didn't have it last time I tried. OP, what version of Debian and/or Ubuntu did you use to find this? We need to verify for ourselves. The only purpose I can think of for Debian to use /tools is to hide a recovery system that can be used in the event of a failed update. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Potential damage of $LFS/tools setting in section 4.2 and 4.3 of LFS book.
On 3/19/19 2:25 AM, niuneilneo wrote: As described in the title, the $LFS/tools setting could be harmful for the current linux distros. Because there already exists /tools folder in current Debian/Ubuntu distros, and it is not possible to correctly set the symlink between the $LFS/tools and /tools. Even if I brutally delete the /tools folder, and set the symlink, the host system will complain that "Too many levels of symbolic links" for simple commands like tar, and all LFS operations following will not be able to execute. I wonder this problem is caused by the dead cycle between the /tools and $LFS/tools. So I suggest totally remove this setting or warn user not to set this variable when some host distros default have /tools in their root folder. We need to verify this. What specific version of Debian has /tools? LFS has used /tools for almost 20 years. I think it is unlikely that Debian started to use it. Changing /tools would be *very* invasive. I counted 86 files, including several in the stylesheets that match /tools. Not all of these matches refer to our /tools. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Potential damage of $LFS/tools setting in section 4.2 and 4.3 of LFS book.
On 3/19/19, Frans de Boer wrote: > On 19-03-19 10:19, Michael Shell wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:15:25 +0100 >> thomas wrote: >> >>> Renaming /tools to another name will be appropriate to come over this >>> issue. >> >> Perhaps a more functionally descriptive name would also help in other >> ways. After all, the stuff in /tools is for a *temporary* LFS system, >> a first stage of the LFS build process. >> >> So, perhaps a dir name such as "lfs_stage1" or "lfs_tmp_toolchain" would >> not only avoid the Debian namespace collision, but also would be more >> educational, potentially less confusing to the newbie, and functionally >> descriptive as well. >> >> Just my $0.02, >> > I already use for years now the link name 'lfs'. I build script files > and use a common include which contains the current link name. Easy when > I change the link name again, I only have to change it in the common > include file once. > > My 0,01 Euro cents ;) I like those variations. They're *cognitively friendly*, a reminder from whence that strange top level directory came. If length isn't a consideration, meaning considering so many directories are 3 to 5 characters long at that level, I like that "lfs_toolchain", even versus the slightly shorter "lfs_tool" variation. "Toolchain".. it's nice to see that. It made me just search to get the right feel via chatter out on the W-W-W. Surely others will do the same as part of the learning process, thus gaining and hopefully retaining an important piece of Linux nomenclature. Yeah, I know it's in the book, again it's that whole cognitive thing (*for some of us*). Helps to keep flashing that reminder. :) Additionally, being able to encounter that "lfs" on regular occasion at that level... that's a nice, not-so-subtle *visual* reminder to get back in there and GIT-R-DONE! That's especially true since you're talking about that one being temporary and thus to be deleted at some point deeper into our progress. Yeah, /tool has theoretically been there already serving in that capacity, BUT.. *in my case*, "tool" just sort of nuzzled its way in then hung out there innocuously with all the other... 4-letter-words in Debian's hierarchy. :D Cindy :) -- Talking Rock, North Georgia -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Potential damage of $LFS/tools setting in section 4.2 and 4.3 of LFS book.
On 19-03-19 10:19, Michael Shell wrote: On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:15:25 +0100 thomas wrote: Renaming /tools to another name will be appropriate to come over this issue. Perhaps a more functionally descriptive name would also help in other ways. After all, the stuff in /tools is for a *temporary* LFS system, a first stage of the LFS build process. So, perhaps a dir name such as "lfs_stage1" or "lfs_tmp_toolchain" would not only avoid the Debian namespace collision, but also would be more educational, potentially less confusing to the newbie, and functionally descriptive as well. Just my $0.02, Mike Shell I already use for years now the link name 'lfs'. I build script files and use a common include which contains the current link name. Easy when I change the link name again, I only have to change it in the common include file once. My 0,01 Euro cents ;) Frans. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Potential damage of $LFS/tools setting in section 4.2 and 4.3 of LFS book.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:15:25 +0100 thomas wrote: > Renaming /tools to another name will be appropriate to come over this > issue. Perhaps a more functionally descriptive name would also help in other ways. After all, the stuff in /tools is for a *temporary* LFS system, a first stage of the LFS build process. So, perhaps a dir name such as "lfs_stage1" or "lfs_tmp_toolchain" would not only avoid the Debian namespace collision, but also would be more educational, potentially less confusing to the newbie, and functionally descriptive as well. Just my $0.02, Mike Shell -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] Potential damage of $LFS/tools setting in section 4.2 and 4.3 of LFS book.
As described in the title, the $LFS/tools setting could be harmful for the current linux distros. Because there already exists /tools folder in current Debian/Ubuntu distros, and it is not possible to correctly set the symlink between the $LFS/tools and /tools. Even if I brutally delete the /tools folder, and set the symlink, the host system will complain that "Too many levels of symbolic links" for simple commands like tar, and all LFS operations following will not be able to execute.I wonder this problem is caused by the dead cycle between the /tools and $LFS/tools. So I suggest totally remove this setting or warn user not to set this variable when some host distros default have /tools in their root folder.Yours sincerely,Lei Niu niuneilneo niuneil...@gmail.com 签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制 -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
