Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-25 Thread M.Canales.es


 I will start tomorrow another build with the updated LFS-SVN code (if the
 new patches are availables for download at that time) and without chapter05
 M4.

Doned also. Conclusions:

M4 can be romoved from Chapter05. I'm doing the commit now.

We must to investigate wy now ICA/farces tests shows that 
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/cc1
and
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/cc1plus
differs.

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-25 Thread Uwe Düffert

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Dan Nicholson wrote:

 On 2/24/07, Bryan Kadzban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  OTOH, I don't know why most of these people think it's the CLFS package
  either -- are they doing a search on linux-headers and finding that
  package?  Or are they doing something else that's pointing them there?
  I don't think any of these suggestions should be used unless they help
  fix the root of the user confusion -- and I don't know what that is for
  sure.

 This was the same reason I couldn't come up with anything. I'm worried
 that just putting the version number after Linux won't help people in
 this situation. But it'll have to do until an actual confused user
 suggests something different.
Well, I'm not actually confused, but I think my view on that topic might
be helpful nevertheless. In my case the unknown thing pointing to Jims
headers is my memory.

There was a time when those headers were the way to go to get sanitized
headers. Since that time there is a connection (although no strong one
any more) between the term linux-headers and the requirement to get a
package with that name. The package is actively maintained, and
accordingly my scripts that regularly harvest the web for new package
version from the original sites still get new versions of it.

I remember having thought months ago: didn't they want to use the headers
provided by the kernel build target? Why is there still a page called
linux-headers? A quick look into it ended that estonishment, the
content is more than obvious. I think naming it linux-$version-headers
would have prevented me from having to look into it, but I do not like
version numbers in places were they are not required or appropriate.

If there is the wish to rename it to avoid confusion I would vote for
somethimg more descriptive just as in other cases that do things other
than just installing a certain package. E.g. installinglinuxheaders.

Uwe
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 05:49, Dan Nicholson escribió:


 Manuel, since you're all set up to do the ICA builds with jhalfs,
 could you remove m4 from Ch. 5 and see if anything happens?

I'm doing the ICA/farce build now. 

A previous sucessful build with all final system testsuites enabled show that 
the removal of M4 from chapter05 don't afect the testsuites.

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
M.Canales.es wrote:

 A previous sucessful build with all final system testsuites enabled show that 
 the removal of M4 from chapter05 don't afect the testsuites.

Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine via 
jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if one doesn't drop m4? 
If not, then I really see no reason to keep it.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:58, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió:

 Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine
 via jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if one doesn't
 drop m4? If not, then I really see no reason to keep it.

What's the download URL for current  HJL binutils?

I will try it after finished the current ICA/farce build.

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
M.Canales.es wrote:

 What's the download URL for current  HJL binutils?

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/binutils-2.17.50.0.12.tar.bz2

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Bryan Kadzban
Dan Nicholson wrote:
 On 2/20/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2/19/07, Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the
 Linux-Headers installation comes from the kernel tarball. More
 than one user has come into the IRC chat asking if it was the
 CLFS Linux-Headers package.
 
 No kidding. I don't know what else can be said, though. The Ch. 5
 page says This is done by way of sanitizing various C header files
 that are shipped in the Linux kernel source tarball.
 
 I'd think the only reason to specify the mechanism would be if you 
 weren't using the scripts in the kernel. If you can think of
 anything, though, I'll add it.
 
 Could someone suggest some text here? I really don't know what to
 write.

I don't think I can come up with any way to make the text clearer, but
what might help is to change the name of the package.  Something like
Linux-linux-version;-Headers instead of putting the version at the
end, perhaps?  That way it might be a bit more obvious that it's not a
package named linux-headers, and hopefully that makes it a bit more
obvious that it isn't CLFS's linux-headers package either.

Or, since I'm not at all sure how the automatic indexing stuff works yet
in DocBook ({indexterm}, etc.), perhaps it would be possible to just
remove the hyphens for that package, and call it Linux 2.6.20 Headers
or Linux Headers, so those strings show up in the index (and on the
rest of the pages)?

Or better yet, call it Linux API Headers, or something else that could
indicate its function and also split Linux and Headers apart?

OTOH, I don't know why most of these people think it's the CLFS package
either -- are they doing a search on linux-headers and finding that
package?  Or are they doing something else that's pointing them there?
I don't think any of these suggestions should be used unless they help
fix the root of the user confusion -- and I don't know what that is for
sure.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 14:30, Bryan Kadzban escribió:


 Or, since I'm not at all sure how the automatic indexing stuff works yet
 in DocBook ({indexterm}, etc.), perhaps it would be possible to just
 remove the hyphens for that package, and call it Linux 2.6.20 Headers
 or Linux Headers, so those strings show up in the index (and on the
 rest of the pages)?

Right, the Index need be fixed. It uses yet the tagging inherited for when 
using the Linux-libc-headers package.

Also I vote for changing the pages title to Linux-2.6.20 API Headers

I can do both changes later today if there are no complaints.


-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Saturday 24 February 2007 13:44, M.Canales.es wrote:

 Also I vote for changing the pages title to Linux-2.6.20 API Headers

 I can do both changes later today if there are no complaints.

No complaints here, Manuel.  Thanks!
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 14:49, Matthew Burgess escribió:

 No complaints here, Manuel.  Thanks!

Done in r7942 and r7943

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/24/07, Bryan Kadzban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 OTOH, I don't know why most of these people think it's the CLFS package
 either -- are they doing a search on linux-headers and finding that
 package?  Or are they doing something else that's pointing them there?
 I don't think any of these suggestions should be used unless they help
 fix the root of the user confusion -- and I don't know what that is for
 sure.

This was the same reason I couldn't come up with anything. I'm worried
that just putting the version number after Linux won't help people in
this situation. But it'll have to do until an actual confused user
suggests something different. Unfortunately, I don't know how many
confused users read lfs-dev. I'm gonna throw it onto support and see
if anyone takes the bait.

--
Dan
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:58, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió:

 Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine
 via jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if one doesn't
 drop m4? If not, then I really see no reason to keep it.

HJL Binutils complaints about missing Bison and Flex, thus being M4 missing 
also (if it can be removed) is not worse than the current situation, IMHO.


-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/24/07, M.Canales.es [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:58, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió:

  Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine
  via jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if one doesn't
  drop m4? If not, then I really see no reason to keep it.

 HJL Binutils complaints about missing Bison and Flex, thus being M4 missing
 also (if it can be removed) is not worse than the current situation, IMHO.

Bison and flex depend on m4, correct? So, it's exactly the same. The
current policy is that we don't care about HJL until we need to. The
bison and flex pages are still in the repo, just not tied into
chapter05.xml.

Hmm, it looks like someone removed the old commented entries for bison
and flex in Ch.5. Oh, that was our work in alphabetical. I guess if we
ever need to get the HJL dependencies back in, the Ch. 5 order will
have to be reworked since m4 would have to move to the beginning (or
somewhere else before bison).

Did you ever find out if the diffs in cc1 were related to the m4 removal?

--
Dan
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 21:28, Dan Nicholson escribió:


 Did you ever find out if the diffs in cc1 were related to the m4 removal?


I'm doing now a new ICA/farce build but with M4 to see if that two binaries 
differs also or not.

If they not differ, M4 should be retained and maybe added to GCC dependencies 
list.

If they not differ, M4 can be removed but we will need to investigate what 
causes that that files differs.

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Dan Nicholson wrote:
 Hmm, it looks like someone removed the old commented entries for bison
 and flex in Ch.5. Oh, that was our work in alphabetical. I guess if we

I had thought that the alphabetical branch didn't even touch chapter 5?

--
JH
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 21:34, M.Canales.es escribió:

 I'm doing now a new ICA/farce build but with M4 to see if that two binaries
 differs also or not.

Another cause could be that my system have now a very big load and ocasionally 
I have aleatories build fails (two times in the last four days, one building 
Glibc and another running the Autoconf testsuite).

That it what i'm doing two or three build of each type to do the tests. But 
reports from others folks will very very apreciated.

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 21:38, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:

 I had thought that the alphabetical branch didn't even touch chapter 5?

There was some changes, included the removal of the commented-out Bison and 
Flex lines, when doned the merge. See

 svn diff -r7279:7489 chapter05/chapter05.xml

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread Ken Moffat
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:41:27PM +0100, M.Canales.es wrote:
 El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:40, M.Canales.es escribió:
 
 
  I'm doing the ICA/farce build now.
 
 
 ICA and farce reports this differs:
 
 FAIL:  /usr/lib/libstdc++.la is different
 FAIL:  /usr/lib/libsupc++.la is different
 
 That two has been here from always.
 
 FAIL:  /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/cc1 differs after stripping and 
 processing
 FAIL:  /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/cc1plus differs after stripping 
 and processing
 
 That two are new, at least for me, but I'm not sure yet if are due the M4 
 removal or not. 
 Sorry I'm a bit later than I'd like in replying to this, but I saw
these running farce on the book as it was in December.  Didn't
bother reporting it, so feel free to moan at me.

 Unrelatedly, I'm probably going to be less active, maybe even
disappear from the lists, for the next week or two (family reasons).

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-24 Thread M.Canales.es
El Domingo, 25 de Febrero de 2007 00:43, Ken Moffat escribió:

  Sorry I'm a bit later than I'd like in replying to this, but I saw
 these running farce on the book as it was in December.  Didn't
 bother reporting it, so feel free to moan at me.

Thanks for remembering that now.

My second ICA/farce build has finished just now, and it corfims that that GCC 
binaries differs also having M4 on chapter05. That builds has been done 
before the GCC, Glibc, and DB updates done by Matthew this morning. 

I will start tomorrow another build with the updated LFS-SVN code (if the new 
patches are availables for download at that time) and without chapter05 M4. 

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-23 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/21/07, M.Canales.es [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 El Martes, 20 de Febrero de 2007 09:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:

   3. Is m4 really needed in Chapter 5? I thought the only reason it was
   there was because of Binutils, but it doesn't need m4 now...
 
  Is that why? I have no idea, and I think you're probably most
  qualified since you did all the work on the dependencies. The other
  things that need it early in Ch. 6 are bison and autoconf, and they're
  taken care of. I just looked through my logs, and gcc checks for m4,
  but I don't think it uses it.
 
  It could probably be removed or commented out, but I think someone
  will have to do an ICA build to see what happens.

Manuel, since you're all set up to do the ICA builds with jhalfs,
could you remove m4 from Ch. 5 and see if anything happens?

--
Dan
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-23 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/20/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2/19/07, Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the Linux-Headers
  installation comes from the kernel tarball. More than one user has come
  into the IRC chat asking if it was the CLFS Linux-Headers package.

 No kidding. I don't know what else can be said, though. The Ch. 5 page
 says This is done by way of sanitizing various C header files that
 are shipped in the Linux kernel source tarball.

 I'd think the only reason to specify the mechanism would be if you
 weren't using the scripts in the kernel. If you can think of anything,
 though, I'll add it.

Could someone suggest some text here? I really don't know what to write.

  2. The toolchain-adjustment section says that you can edit the specs
  file by hand, but there is no specs file at all until it's generated by
  that command gcc | sed command.

Fixed.

  3. Is m4 really needed in Chapter 5? I thought the only reason it was
  there was because of Binutils, but it doesn't need m4 now...

Hopefully Manuel can rip off an ICA build to check this out. I'm not
in a position for that right now, but I can set it up if needed.

  4. Inetutils installs programs for ipv6, including a ping6 program.
  Since the FHS says that ping must be in /bin, it would seem to make
  sense to put ping6 there too...this is what we have done in CLFS.

 I don't think I agree with that, but I don't feel really strongly either way.

I didn't change this since I don't really agree. Someone else can
certainly make that change, though.

  5. The instructions for Man-DB eliminate the reference to /usr/man in
  the manpage search path to remove potential redundant results (since
  /usr/man is a symlink to /usr/share/man). The same should be done for
  /usr/local/man.

Fixed.

  6. Are the instructions in Texinfo for optionally installing TeX stuff
  really needed? First, there is no explanation for what TeX is. Second,
  there is no description of what exactly is installed (components
  belonging in a TeX installation - what components?). We simply removed
  that in CLFS.

I left this alone for now since I like having the TeX commands in
there. I think this should be discussed some more if it's going to be
changed.

  7. The Udev page says that Udev does not install any rules by default.
  Actually, it does. Right make install for Udev...

Fixed.

  Do we want to keep those or replace them? In CLFS we simply eliminate
  the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d immediately after installing Udev.

As stated before, I think we're trying to use the upstream rules files
as much as possible.

  Also, the make install-doc command for the LFS Udev rules creates the
  /usr/share/doc/udev-105 directory so the command for installing the
  documentation for writing Udev rules should be able to be shortened to
  install -m644 -v docs/writing_udev_rules/index.html
  /usr/share/doc/udev-105.

Fixed.

  Also, I have attached a patch with a few text fixes for the book.
 snip

Applied. Thanks, Chris.

--
Dan
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-21 Thread M.Canales.es
El Martes, 20 de Febrero de 2007 09:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:

  3. Is m4 really needed in Chapter 5? I thought the only reason it was
  there was because of Binutils, but it doesn't need m4 now...

 Is that why? I have no idea, and I think you're probably most
 qualified since you did all the work on the dependencies. The other
 things that need it early in Ch. 6 are bison and autoconf, and they're
 taken care of. I just looked through my logs, and gcc checks for m4,
 but I don't think it uses it.

 It could probably be removed or commented out, but I think someone
 will have to do an ICA build to see what happens.

I'm starting now a ICA/farce build to test that and to verify that the warning 
in the Bzip2 instructions about needing to run rm /usr/bin/bz* if you 
reinstall is no longer needed with the latest version. T

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:   http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Various issues with the book

2007-02-20 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/19/07, Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the Linux-Headers
 installation comes from the kernel tarball. More than one user has come
 into the IRC chat asking if it was the CLFS Linux-Headers package.

No kidding. I don't know what else can be said, though. The Ch. 5 page
says This is done by way of sanitizing various C header files that
are shipped in the Linux kernel source tarball.

I'd think the only reason to specify the mechanism would be if you
weren't using the scripts in the kernel. If you can think of anything,
though, I'll add it.

 2. The toolchain-adjustment section says that you can edit the specs
 file by hand, but there is no specs file at all until it's generated by
 that command gcc | sed command.

Nice catch.

 3. Is m4 really needed in Chapter 5? I thought the only reason it was
 there was because of Binutils, but it doesn't need m4 now...

Is that why? I have no idea, and I think you're probably most
qualified since you did all the work on the dependencies. The other
things that need it early in Ch. 6 are bison and autoconf, and they're
taken care of. I just looked through my logs, and gcc checks for m4,
but I don't think it uses it.

It could probably be removed or commented out, but I think someone
will have to do an ICA build to see what happens.

 4. Inetutils installs programs for ipv6, including a ping6 program.
 Since the FHS says that ping must be in /bin, it would seem to make
 sense to put ping6 there too...this is what we have done in CLFS.

I don't think I agree with that, but I don't feel really strongly either way.

 5. The instructions for Man-DB eliminate the reference to /usr/man in
 the manpage search path to remove potential redundant results (since
 /usr/man is a symlink to /usr/share/man). The same should be done for
 /usr/local/man.

Good point.

 6. Are the instructions in Texinfo for optionally installing TeX stuff
 really needed? First, there is no explanation for what TeX is. Second,
 there is no description of what exactly is installed (components
 belonging in a TeX installation - what components?). We simply removed
 that in CLFS.

I like that. You can enable an additional part with no extra
dependencies. And we don't install texinfo in BLFS, so the TeX sources
would just float away unless you were around before to know that they
exist.

I'd be alright with adding a little explanation about what they are.
Maybe all that's needed is a link to a site explaining TeX.

 7. The Udev page says that Udev does not install any rules by default.
 Actually, it does. Right make install for Udev...

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/lfs/sources/udev-105# ls /etc/udev/rules.d/
 60-cdrom_id.rules  75-persistent-net-generator.rules
 75-cd-aliases-generator.rules

OK.

 Do we want to keep those or replace them? In CLFS we simply eliminate
 the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d immediately after installing Udev.

We actually use them in LFS, and we decided not to replace any rules
provided upstream (unless they're broken). The udev-config tarball
only has a couple rules files and some documentation.

 Also, the make install-doc command for the LFS Udev rules creates the
 /usr/share/doc/udev-105 directory so the command for installing the
 documentation for writing Udev rules should be able to be shortened to
 install -m644 -v docs/writing_udev_rules/index.html
 /usr/share/doc/udev-105.

Thanks.

 Also, I have attached a patch with a few text fixes for the book.
snip

Those all look good. Thanks, Chris.

--
Dan
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Various issues with the book

2007-02-19 Thread Chris Staub
1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the Linux-Headers 
installation comes from the kernel tarball. More than one user has come 
into the IRC chat asking if it was the CLFS Linux-Headers package.


2. The toolchain-adjustment section says that you can edit the specs 
file by hand, but there is no specs file at all until it's generated by 
that command gcc | sed command.


3. Is m4 really needed in Chapter 5? I thought the only reason it was 
there was because of Binutils, but it doesn't need m4 now...


4. Inetutils installs programs for ipv6, including a ping6 program. 
Since the FHS says that ping must be in /bin, it would seem to make 
sense to put ping6 there too...this is what we have done in CLFS.


5. The instructions for Man-DB eliminate the reference to /usr/man in 
the manpage search path to remove potential redundant results (since 
/usr/man is a symlink to /usr/share/man). The same should be done for 
/usr/local/man.


6. Are the instructions in Texinfo for optionally installing TeX stuff 
really needed? First, there is no explanation for what TeX is. Second, 
there is no description of what exactly is installed (components 
belonging in a TeX installation - what components?). We simply removed 
that in CLFS.


7. The Udev page says that Udev does not install any rules by default. 
Actually, it does. Right make install for Udev...


[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/lfs/sources/udev-105# ls /etc/udev/rules.d/
60-cdrom_id.rules  75-persistent-net-generator.rules
75-cd-aliases-generator.rules

Do we want to keep those or replace them? In CLFS we simply eliminate 
the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d immediately after installing Udev.


Also, the make install-doc command for the LFS Udev rules creates the 
/usr/share/doc/udev-105 directory so the command for installing the 
documentation for writing Udev rules should be able to be shortened to 
install -m644 -v docs/writing_udev_rules/index.html 
/usr/share/doc/udev-105.


Also, I have attached a patch with a few text fixes for the book. First, 
the warning in the Bzip2 instructions about needing to run rm 
/usr/bin/bz* if you reinstall is no longer needed with the latest 
version. There are also corrections for the number of Autoconf tests 
that use Automake, and more accurate descriptions of what make install 
and make install-libs do in E2fsprogs.
Index: trunk/BOOK/chapter06/bzip2.xml
===
--- trunk/BOOK/chapter06/bzip2.xml  (revision 7926)
+++ trunk/BOOK/chapter06/bzip2.xml  (working copy)
@@ -66,10 +66,6 @@
 
 screenuserinputmake/userinput/screen
 
-paraIf reinstalling Bzip2, perform
-userinputrm -vf /usr/bin/bz*/userinput first, otherwise the following
-commandmake install/command will fail./para
-
 paraInstall the programs:/para
 
 screenuserinputmake PREFIX=/usr install/userinput/screen
Index: trunk/BOOK/chapter06/kernfs.xml
===
--- trunk/BOOK/chapter06/kernfs.xml (revision 7926)
+++ trunk/BOOK/chapter06/kernfs.xml (working copy)
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
   create a mirror of a directory or mount point to some other location. Use
   the following command to achieve this:/para
 
-screenuserinputmount --bind /dev $LFS/dev/userinput/screen
+screenuserinputmount -v --bind /dev $LFS/dev/userinput/screen
 
   /sect2
 
Index: trunk/BOOK/chapter06/e2fsprogs.xml
===
--- trunk/BOOK/chapter06/e2fsprogs.xml  (revision 7926)
+++ trunk/BOOK/chapter06/e2fsprogs.xml  (working copy)
@@ -42,8 +42,8 @@
 
 screenuserinputsed -i -e 's@/bin/rm@/toolsamp;@' 
lib/blkid/test_probe.in/userinput/screen
 
-paraIt is recommended that E2fsprogs be built in a subdirectory of
-the source tree: /para
+paraThe E2fsprogs documentation recommends that the package be built in
+a subdirectory of the source tree: /para
 
 screenuserinputmkdir -v build
 cd build/userinput/screen
@@ -106,11 +106,11 @@
 xref linkend=space-mounting/ for details on creating and enabling
 swap space./para
 
-paraInstall the binaries and documentation:/para
+paraInstall the binaries, documentation, and shared libraries:/para
 
 screenuserinputmake install/userinput/screen
 
-paraInstall the shared libraries:/para
+paraInstall the static libraries and headers:/para
 
 screenuserinputmake install-libs/userinput/screen
 
Index: trunk/BOOK/chapter06/autoconf.xml
===
--- trunk/BOOK/chapter06/autoconf.xml   (revision 7926)
+++ trunk/BOOK/chapter06/autoconf.xml   (working copy)
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
 
 paraTo test the results, issue:
 userinputmake check/userinput.
-This takes a long time, about 3 SBUs.  In addition, 2 test are skipped
+This takes a long time, about 3 SBUs.  In addition, 6 tests are skipped
 that use Automake.  For full test coverage,