Re: SLFS book chapter proposals

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:58:41 -0500, Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 03:14:46AM +0200, Christos Gioran wrote:
> > 
> <..>
> > Hope this clarifies my sayings to this point. Apologies for any
> > inconsistencies.
> 
> It does. :)
> 
> > The point not clarified (at least IMO) as of yet is whether we will
> > mention only differences from the LFS book or list *all* compilation
> > commands. My proposal is that after deciding on the contents of the
> > book, we will have a clear idea of the extent of differences. If it is
> > tolerable then document the differences only. Otherwise (most
> > probably) we will have to include all instructions from the beginning.
> 
> It would seem to me that if package X is done differently, give the
> entire build commands to build it. If it isn't done differently, but
> rather is just rebuilt with the hardened toolchain, then reference LFS.
> No need trying to keep in sync the same instructions as LFS. That could
> prove to be a hassle.
> 

De-lurking again, just to add my vote to this suggestion. Same applies if
it's just a simple 'apply this patch before running the LFS commands' - no
need to repeat the whole LFS section for package X if that's the case, and
surely we can assume that anyone building {S|H}LFS(*) will have access to
an up-to-date LFS book to refer to.

S>

* - S(ecure) or H(ardened) LFS. After reading Archaic's reasoning behind
the HLFS proposal, I think I'm leaning towards that rather than SLFS, but
has SLFS gotten a big enough memebase to prevent the change taking place?

-- 
<<< Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines >>>
9:44am up 11 days 16:04, 6 users, load average: 0.95, 0.64, 0.56
Registered Linux User #232457
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-security
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page