On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 15:09 +0800, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 20:46, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev > <lfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote: > > In the last few weeks, the LFS editors have been working on a major > > overhaul of LFS. This work can be reviewed at > > > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/cross2-lfs-book/ > > > > Was there an SVN reference (branch) to pull the sources from?
svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/branches/cross2 > > > We welcome comments and criticisms large and small. > > > > -- Bruce > > These comments (or maybe criticisms - your interpretation: your > rules) > based on a very quick speed read: please take that into consideration > when deciding. > > I'd like to see the "cross-compiling 101" sections, so > > Introduction > Toolchain Technical Notes > General Compilation Instructions > in "chapter" 5, separated out from the package build sections there. > > Appreciate they would make for a very small introductory chapter > but it somehow feels wrong as it is. The main problem to me is not this, but that technical considerations are scattered throughout the first chapters, mainly chapter 2 and chapter 5. OTOH, "General Compilation Instructions" should really be very close to the beginning of the "real" work. People tend to jump to it, and not read this important section already, so if it is in another chapter, that will not help... > > Not sure if I'd favour the Pass1 and Pass2 sections all being within > the same chapter or not though, or how one would entitle a chapter > that just contained just those five package builds, plus yet another > Introduction. > > I am also aware that Ninja and Meson are still only "required" for > the SystemD version, but that LFS has decided to build packages > in the SysV revision with them, even though all required packages > can still be built using an Autotools-based approach. > (I 'm sure that claim is soon to be rendered invalid though?) autotools themselves are only needed because we do autoreconf in coreutils. And this is because of the i18n patch... > > I appreciate there's a perception that the SysV and SysD books > should align as much as possible, indeed I've even got some > packages re-ordered on the basis of that view, but I'm less > convinced that the SystemD tail should wag the LFS dog. OTOH, personally, I like meson/ninja. I wish it were used more often. They have nothing to do with systemd. > > Given that LFS used to start from the view that one only built > what was needed to build the LFS-system, and never warming > to the systemd camp fire, i've always felt Ninja and Meson to be > a kind of feature-creep and so was wondering if that could be > made more explicit, so that people could see that Ninja and Meson > could happily be left out until BLFS. > (Though there's no getting away from them there: more's the pity!) OTOH, personally, I like meson/ninja. I wish it were used more often. They have nothing to do with systemd, and those "configure" scripts are just bloated, slow, and do not scale up on many cores. > > Then again, I could make the same claim for Intltool and a > couple of other packages related to it. > > Looking forwards to trying it out though, > Kevin Thanks for contributing. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
