| Newsgroups |
gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 12:31 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 03:55 +0000, lfs wrote:
>
> /* snip */
>
> > Should that command be rendering in a way that would see JHALFS try to
> > execute it in the first place?
> >
> >
> > The source (postlfs/security/make-ca.xml) has
> >
> > <screen role="root"><userinput>/usr/sbin/make-ca -g</userinput></screen>
> >
> > which is why it's getting dumped, but maybe it should be
> >
> > <screen role="nodump"><userinput>/usr/sbin/make-ca -g</userinput></screen>
>
> No. We deliberately don't use nodump here.
>
> If we change it to nodump, packages "depending on" make-ca will fail to
> build because in fact they depend on the certificate store to be set up,
> not just make-ca.
I.e. if we change it to nodump, someone will get a FTBFS if (s)he
selects Mesa in jhalfs. And then (s)he'll complain "LFS/BLFS Books
aren't written so as satisfy JHALFS."
The problem is not "LFS/BLFS Books aren't written so as satisfy JHALFS."
It may be true in the sense LFS/BLFS are supposed to be read by a human,
but then JHALFS is supposed to be adjusted to satisfy LFS/BLFS. I.e. if
jhalfs fails for a LFS/BLFS package we should either fix LFS/BLFS (if it
indicates a real bug in LFS/BLFS), or fix jhalfs.
Here the problem is some BLFS packages are simply not supposed to be
build offline (no matter with or without JHALFS) and we don't want to
spend our time on implementing such a support. And making this
role="root" instead of role="nodump" is EXACTLY for satisfying jhalfs,
not the opposite.
If you just select some random packages without reading the book to see
if building them (and their dependencies) needs an Internet connection,
you should NOT assume the build can be totally off-line.
--
Xi Ruoyao <[email protected]>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page