Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi, > > http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use the > same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS uses > another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more architectures > still. > > Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic > purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at all > in its current form, I'd like to drop it. As the ticket mentions, the > correct way to implement this, according to upstream, is to have the kernel > make the processor type available via a syscall. > > Thoughts, comments?
It is a cosmetic patch, but I like it. I don't see a particular advantage to having all the books use the same patch. In other words, it would be much more effort to maintain it than it's worth. Why would we want to change the LFS book to keep the patch in sync if it changed for some exotic architecture being addressed in CLFS? Looking at the ticket, it might be useful to change the patch to use position independent assembly. I think the problem with putting a syscall into the kernel is that it would be difficult to ensure that it is set properly for all architectures (e.g. Sparc or S390). Overall, I would be in favor of using the patch, but not keeping it in sync with the other *LFS books unless it affected the IA32 architectures. I am not in favor of dropping the patch completely. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
