Em 28-04-2014 06:01, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: > Pierre Labastie wrote: >> Le 28/04/2014 01:21, [email protected] a écrit : >>> Author: fernando >>> Date: Sun Apr 27 16:21:41 2014 >>> New Revision: 13001 >>> >>> Log: >>> Fix Polkit-0.112 build, now that systemd is installed by LFS but >>> system may be running sysvinit. >>> >>> Modified: >>> trunk/BOOK/postlfs/security/polkit.xml >>> >>> Modified: trunk/BOOK/postlfs/security/polkit.xml >>> ============================================================================== >>> >>> --- trunk/BOOK/postlfs/security/polkit.xml Sun Apr 27 16:02:27 >>> 2014 (r13000) >>> +++ trunk/BOOK/postlfs/security/polkit.xml Sun Apr 27 16:21:41 >>> 2014 (r13001) >>> @@ -129,11 +129,12 @@ >>> commands: >>> </para> >>> >>> -<screen><userinput>./configure --prefix=/usr \ >>> - --sysconfdir=/etc \ >>> - --localstatedir=/var \ >>> - --disable-static \ >>> - --with-authfw=shadow && >>> +<screen><userinput>./configure --prefix=/usr \ >>> + --sysconfdir=/etc \ >>> + --localstatedir=/var \ >>> + --disable-static \ >>> + --enable-libsystemd-login \ >>> + --with-authfw=shadow && >>> make</userinput></screen> >>> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I think we should have a discussion about this kind of fixes, which >> make BLFS >> incompatible with any version of LFS prior to current SVN or so. I >> know that >> "this is development", but some base version of LFS (not necessarily >> current >> stable) should be used for BLFS updating, otherwise different editors >> might >> want to implement different fixes, with the eventual risk for the book to >> become auto-incompatible. > > For lfs-7.5 and lfs-7.4 there are blfs versions to accompany those > versions. We are changing LFS in a fairly dramatic way and BLFS has to > change to accommodate it. > > If we split lfs in to separate systemd and traditional books and also > did the same for blfs, it would satisfy some users, but we don't have > the manpower to do that. In addition, we would lose something. The > differences between the builds is really quite small. > > Fernando and I did some talking and I investigated polkit in particular. > The effect of systemd is zero. They've linked in two calls that force > linking the library, but the effect is absolutely zero. Its a > placeholder right now, probably for future use. The > --enable-libsystemd-login is only there to satisfy the build requirements.
I am running and prefer sysV, not systd. But with new LFS, it is necessary to make BLFS compatible. I would prefer tow versions of LFS and two of BLFS. However, Bruce's research leading to LFS hybrid is a good one and should not be lost. We do not have enough manpower to maintain two BLFS. My particular point of view(s) is (are) very similar to the akh's (another thread post , earlier today), unfortunately, as written above, we are doing what seems to be possible, with current status of LFS. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
