brent s. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hello all!
A lot of work has been put into LFS- I did my last install about 3 years
ago, and doing a refresher install now- and it's much easier to use now
and does a fantastic job explaining the ideas behind it.
However, I was wondering if anyone had any feedback. To "give back" to
the project, I'd like to submit some patches.
You can certainly do that here.
Nothing major, mostly just simplifying commands. For example:
5.5 GCC-4.9.2 (in 20150219 build of the SystemD LFS), the second code
block contains:
for file in \
...
cp -uv $file{,.orig}
sed -e 's@/lib\(64\)\?\(32\)\?/ld@/tools&@g' \
-e 's@/usr@/tools@g' $file.orig > $file
...
The type of patch I'd submit would convert that to the cleaner (and thus
easier to read):
____________________
sed -i.orig -re 's@/lib(64)?(32)?/ld@/tools&@g ;\
s@/usr@/tools@g' $file
____________________
I agree that your construct is cleaner. However, we do try to offer alternative
ways to do things as a learning tool. For instance, we do use the alternative
in Section 6.18. Bzip2-1.0.6.
Are these sorts of "improvements" welcome (being that style is a pretty
subjective thing)? If so, I can work on a patch but if not, I didn't
want to waste my nor another's time.
Sure, they're welcome. For something as easy as that we don't really need a
patch though.
Additionally, if such changes were welcome, is it generally preferred to
have one large unified patch or a series of smaller patches?
For LFS, I do most of the changes, so posting here in either format is welcome.
However I suggest discussion first before you go to the effort of creating a
patch.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
