sfk1 at bigfoot.com
Wed May 7 05:32:44 PDT 2003
* Erika Pacholleck <pchllck at nexgo.de> wrote:
>> I could imagine the following scenarios:
>> 1. Leave everything as it is
>> 4. Go all the way and use /service, /command, /package and /usr/local
> To my view there are only those two, either you stick to LFS or you do
> it completely the DJBs way. And as a standard (B)LFS built needs /etc
> to be writable anyways, your
>> 2. Compromise - use /var/service instead of /etc/service
> seems out of question to me.
Why does /etc have to be writable in a standard (B)LFS?
> Back to the original question, I think the question is not whether BLFS
> does DJB a disservice or not, but whether it does its readers a
> disservice by forcing one method only. Treating both the readers and DJB
> fair, means for me to point out the inconsistancies and leave the reader
> the choice.
Do you want two sets of instructions or just a brief mention of the
> But if it is an either/or decision which method goes into BLFS, I would
> choose to change everything so it fits into a standard LFS system. BLFS
> is at least connected to LFS and this method surely needs more things
> to consider then just a normal install-triple - and readers will not
> run into "you are missing this and that" when trying it without help.
True. The complex (FHS) install commands show the reader that you are
not dependent on DJB's install preferences.
I still think though that for the daemontools newbie /service is
easier to understand than /etc/service, especially when using
the (widespread) symlink method:
/service/dnscache --> /etc/dnscache
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-dev