Re: SLFS book chapter proposals

> > Hope this clarifies my sayings to this point. Apologies for any
> > inconsistencies.
>
> It does. :)

Relieved

> > 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.

OK, that would prove to require the minimum space required and consistence 
with the LFS book (duplication of information in my opinion is a bad idea). 
But, even though this approach will prove optimum to all who have a clue, how 
about these "poor" fellows that start now? The would have to cross-reference 
between two books (three, if packages from BLFS are included), and that would 
cause at least confusion. Imagine what a great task this will become if more 
than a few packages change. Moreover, the instructions at the LFS book don't 
change too often (at least not often enough to prove too difficult to follow 
them). I could be wrong on this one though.

I have not eneded up to a solution as of yet. I want to think about it a bit 
longer. Let's kick the idea around for a while and see where it ends.

> Archaic

-- 
himicos
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-security
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page