Hi,
thank you for your opinions.
> > * Do we want tools to create (or at least verify) builds, pages,
> > patches..?
> ...
Chris suggested splitting every build recipe (sed, glibc etc.) to several
parts like unpacking, patching, build, installation. Patches need some
explanatory header. It may be desirable to have utilities checking correctness
before submitting these.
> building a
> HLFS system (which would be more of a job for the ALFS)?
Robert wants an early reboot to /tools. It would relieve HLFS from having to
depend on host non-hardened kernel. For people who do not want a fully
automated build, but do not have gpm and a web browser it is much more useful
in a way they can `less` through a script and the execute it.
> > * Have the tools be online? If everything is, it's obvious, but if not?
>
> Does it make sense to keep them from general public?
Oh, I meant if we want a neat online syntax checker, or we are just fine with
./hlfs-check-recipe. ;-)
> > * Do we want web interface to submit new things? Is e-mail not enough?
>
> svn/git/... access?
Well... you don't give people access to your git repository. Subversion is
about having a coordinated team. What I meant was, if someone spots a mistake
in the book, he should be able to fix it and send the fix to be reviewed. Plus
if someone writes recipe to build a BHLFS package, he should be able to send
it for review too.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
