cvs commit: www/lfs faq.html news-2003.txt

jeroen at jeroen at
Tue Sep 16 16:38:07 PDT 2003

jeroen      03/09/16 17:38:07

  Modified:    lfs      faq.html news-2003.txt
  Correct an incomplete FAQ entry. Added an edited (ie. shorter) news item about LFS and the LSB.
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.18      +1 -1      www/lfs/faq.html
  Index: faq.html
  RCS file: /home/cvsroot/www/lfs/faq.html,v
  retrieving revision 1.17
  retrieving revision 1.18
  diff -u -r1.17 -r1.18
  --- faq.html	15 Sep 2003 07:09:44 -0000	1.17
  +++ faq.html	16 Sep 2003 23:38:06 -0000	1.18
  @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@
   	<dt id="configure-no-such-file">bash: ./configure: No such file or directory</dt>
  -			<p>See the entry: <a href="#how-to-compile">"How do I compile a package?"</a></p>
  +			<p>You forgot to <code>cd</code> into the extracted directory of the package after you've extracted it.</p>
   	<dt id="bad-interpreter-permission-denied">./configure: bad interpreter: Permission denied</dt>
  1.13      +15 -0     www/lfs/news-2003.txt
  Index: news-2003.txt
  RCS file: /home/cvsroot/www/lfs/news-2003.txt,v
  retrieving revision 1.12
  retrieving revision 1.13
  diff -u -r1.12 -r1.13
  --- news-2003.txt	15 Sep 2003 06:32:25 -0000	1.12
  +++ news-2003.txt	16 Sep 2003 23:38:06 -0000	1.13
  @@ -4,6 +4,21 @@
   Section: lfs
  +Title: LFS and the LSB
  +Author: Gerard Beekmans
  +Date: 2003/09/17
  +		<p>I just finished that talk with the LSB guys and we talked a bit how LFS and LSB might be able to work together. Bryan Dumm also participated, so feel free to chime in Bryan in case I miss something.</p>
  +		<p>There's a lot in common between LFS and their SI. Similar research is done, similar build methods/logics and so forth. Where LSB differs greatly is the number of packages installed, and how they are installed. For instance, coreutils is (or will be, when they switch to it from fileutils/sh-utils/textutils) only partially installed. LSB's SI provides a minimal runtime environment, so only a few things from coreutils are installed. The rest is thrown away.</p>
  +		<h5>How LFS and LSB can potentially work together:</h5>
  +		<p>The LFS book can be written to start building an LSB compliant minimal Linux system (ie: minimal according to LSB and other standards, not minimal as in LFS' view of a minimum development system). This would mean chapters 5 and 6 are modified to yield that goal. We would then insert a new chapter that installs the rest (reinstalling coreutils to get it all, adding other optional packages). The exact technical details of this is something we will discuss another time (ie: cvs branch, or main book, or something completely different).</p>
  +		<p>If we do this, we will in essence consolidate knowledge and goals into one. The toolchain maintainers of LFS and LSB compare notes, work together to get the best possible system out and LFS itself can become LSB complaint by default which IMO is a very important goal.</p>
  +		<p>These are just some thoughts and ideas. There isn't anything concrete yet of course.</p>
  +		<p>During the call I suggested that we can easier discuss this by email on a mailinglist, so I invite you guys to subscribe to the <a href="">lsb-impl mailinglist</a>. We can talk to the LSB guys there, talk how LFS does things (ie plfs build method), how they do it, what's different, etc. In particular the toolchain is an interesting area. LSB does it differently than LFS. I'd like to see why, maybe there's something we've all missed. It goes both ways, maybe they're doing it in a way that Greg has shown to be overkill.</p>
  +		<p>If you guys are interested in pursuing this, join the lsb-impl list. I'm not sure how exactly these discussion will start, but we'll figure that one out soon. There's a second conference call planned this Thursday.</p>
  +		<p>Read the full message on <a href="">lfs-dev</a>.</p>
   Title: LSB Sample implementation and LFS
   Author: Gerard Beekmans
   Date: 2003/09/13

More information about the website mailing list