On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 19:06:40 +0100 Tim Tassonis <st...@decentral.ch> wrote:
> On 3/18/21 6:21 PM, Scott Andrews wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:51:09 -0500 > > Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/18/21 11:21 AM, Scott Andrews wrote: > >>> > >>> I am presently looking at and working on the LFS boot scripts. > >>> They are in my opinion very rough state. > >>> > >>> I am going to clean them up and use the following format for all > >>> of the individual scripts that will be used on my systems as > >>> follows: > >>> > >>> Shebang line: #!/bin/bash > >>> Comment Title block: the purpose of the script > >>> Global variables: defined here > >>> Local variables: not defined in functions > >>> Source scripts: all outside scripts sourced here > >>> Functions: all functions defined here > >>> Mainline: main body > >>> Cleanup: any cleanup that needs to be done > >>> Exit: script terminates > >>> > >>> I will add comments to explain the goal/purpose of the script > >>> and also what each function does. I am going to rewrite some of > >>> the scripts so they will be self sufficient as possible. > >>> > >>> I will add ipv6 support using a service file much like > >>> ivp4-static. This should allow ipv6 to be used on both dual > >>> stacked systems and system that are ipv4 or ipv6 only. > >>> > >>> I am also going to build to test them before placing them onto > >>> my working servers. > >>> > >>> Is there any interest by LFS on doing this or am I just wasting > >>> my time posting here? > >> > >> What you propose seems to be mostly documentation, but other > >> changes may be appropriate. I suggest you do a couple and let us > >> review them. Then, with constructive feedback, the rest of the > >> LFS scripts. > >> > > > > No it will be a big cleanup and some documentation. There are > > global variables that are in scripts that have nothing to do with > > the script they are in and only used in a single other script. > > One of them is used in a function and their is zero reason for it > > to be in init-functions. It is also used improperly in the other > > script which most likely lead to someone putting it into > > init-functions to fix a problem that should have been fixed in > > the other script. > >> I'll note though that you are the only one giving feedback and > >> the scripts have only had minor changes since at least 2011. > > > > I had no reason to look at the scripts before hand until now. I > > started on a project to add ipv6, so I reviewed the boot scripts > > to add the new "service" and was horrified by what I saw. Before > > reviewing the scripts my intent was to just add a "service" > > script, but upon the research I did to accomplish just that I saw > > that I would have to rewrite and/or correct them. If I was going > > to do all that work I might as well rewrite them into some kind > > of a standard format and then add the documentation that has bee > > missing since before 2011. > > > > The boot scripts are in need of a massive cleanup to say the > > least. > > > I think it would be a bit more productive if you refrained from > slagging off other people's work. Saying you could make some > improvements to the stuff would suffice, as opposed to phrases like > "was horrified by what I saw" and "massive cleanup to say the > least". > > If you want to help, that's great, but if you just want to insult > other people, then... > > Bye > Tim > Oh so it is OK for you to insult others but others can not do that? I get it. Yes I was ACTUALLY horrified by what I saw. The scripts reminds me of spaghetti code, with variables in other scripts that no business in that script as it only is local to rc in this case, like in SCRIPT_STAT for example. As the Subject line states "Boot scripts: request for comments" Good, Bad or Ugly I accept and read all comments not just the ones I agree with. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
