On Sep 2, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:e
>>
>>
>>
> Complexity was not the reason I rewrote the scripts. I didn't want to
> add initd-tools to LFS, although I did add it to BLFS. I made the
> scripts LSB compatible, but didn't use the initd-tools to install them.
A silly objection given the size and simplicity of initd_tools weighed against
the feature(s) it gives you. But I suppose you're entitled to be silly.
Even if you don't include it, there's nothing that prevents you from using the
LSB scripts without initd_tools. You can make symlinks in the rc.x directories
if you really like doing that.
> I also didn't like the network layout. I moved ifup/ifdown to /sbin and
> created /lib/boot for bootscript use (e.g. network service scripts). I
> got rid of /etc/sysconfig/rc because I thought it gave a level of
> indirection for no perceived benefit. I changed the network
> configuration files to something I thought was more sane that didn't
> depend on directory structure/directory names.
>
> I also added /run as a top level directory, mounted a tmpfs there, and
> use it for /var/{run,lock,shm} and a place for bootscript messages
> (/var/run/bootlog)
All stuff that was already done in DJs scripts, with slight variances. You are
illustrating my point.
> I started all this in early July.
I voiced an objection then, too.
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
