On 20/05/2016 19:53, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Douglas R. Reno wrote: >> On 5/20/2016 11:12 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Simon Geard wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 07:40 -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote: >>>>> That is not true regarding our updates. DJ Lucas and I are committed >>>>> to ensuring that the systemd book stays up to date and a good >>>>> resource at all times. However, neither of us have touched GNOME yet. >>>> >>>> Out of curiosity, how much actually differs between the systemd and >>>> sysv books? I would have thought that 99% of packages would be >>>> identical, and only trivial differences in most of the rest... >>> >>> I'm not going to do an exact count, but a quick grep shows 22 of 813 xml >>> files in BLFS trunk (2.7%) mention systemd. >>> >>> Actually that would argue for a way to merge the development tree. >>> Right now sections are put into the book with chapter lines like: >>> >>> <xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"; href="lxrandr.xml"/> >>> >>> XML does not have an if/then/else statement, but there might be some >>> xslt magic that could implement it. It would be nice if we could do >>> >>> make >>> >>> for the book in trunk and >>> >>> make systemd >>> >>> for that book from the same trunk. The place to check that out >>> initially would be LFS since it is a lot shorter. >>> >>> An alternate way is to just have separate index pages. The book is >>> rendered in the Makefile by the validate target: >>> >>> xmllint --nonet --noent --xinclude --postvalid \ >>> -o $(RENDERTMP)/lfs-full.xml index.xml >>> >>> with a separate index-systemd.xml that defines the identical trunk files >>> and then substitutes/adds the specific files needed by systemd would >>> probably simplify the systemd maintenance a lot. >>> >>> If Douglas or DJ can identify those files that are specific to systemd >>> in LFS, I can take a look at prototyping such a system. > >> I could probably do that this weekend. Do you want LFS for now, or both >> LFS and BLFS? > > Just LFS for now. We need to do a proof of concept. > >> In LFS, we have to add / remove some switches from packages >> such as Util-Linux. Would we keep a separate util-linux page in the book >> then (as an example)? > > Yes, a separate page in that case is what I have in mind for those > situations. I don't know if we would need to have a separate entry for > packages.ent or not. I see that as a possibility, but it may not be needed. > However, we do need to think the whole thing through. > > -- Bruce > I think you should look at how they do it in CLFS. They have a "variant" book (for different targets) in one source.
Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
