the two package.ent files
jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 14 11:31:37 PST 2004
Thomas Pegg wrote:
> Jamie had brought this up last month, although we have not discussed it
> since then, therefore I don't think we ever came to a final decision on
> it. I agree that having the user modify the LFS-5.0.xml file is not the
> best way, but at the time it was the easiest solution. I think my
> suggestion of using to seperate config directories is the best, although
> I'm biased on this, but the reason I think it's better is because the
> user doesn't have to do much extra except decide which config directory
> to choose from depending on wether they're using the packages tarball or
> not. Maintenance of these two directories (config_seperate and
> config_tarball) is not really that big of an issue, since only
> config_seperate will be updated all the time, and the config_tarball
> will only be updated when a new release of the LFS book happens and only
> if something that was changed in the config_seperate also need to be
> changed in config_tarball.
> Note: I already created these directories in CVS (probably shouldn't
> have), but I didn't go any further as to putting files in them until I
> heard what you guys think about this solution. Plus I wanted to bring
> this up before I finalized the next 5.0 profile tarball.
That sounds fine to me. Thanks Thomas.
More information about the alfs-discuss