On September 10, 2019 1:19:48 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev <[email protected]> wrote: >On 9/10/19 1:09 PM, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote: >> >> >> On 10 September 2019 19:51:22 Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 9/10/19 12:36 PM, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote: >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> >>>> I noticed that initd-tools is gone from BLFS and seems to have been >>>> replaced by lsb-tools. I also noticed that BLFS bootscripts have >been >>>> updated with tons of fixes for dependency information, so thanks >for all >>>> the work on that! >>>> >>>> >>>> However, I noticed that lsb-tools is implemented in python3, which >of >>>> course is no problem for the book, as python3 is needed for >meson/ninja >>>> in lfs already. >>>> >>>> >>>> My own personal problem is that my lfs/blfs-based distro does >contain >>>> initd-tools in the minimal install I use for my routers, but not >>>> python3, and I'd like to keep it that way, for size and security >reasons >>>> (less software means less bugs). >>>> >>>> >>>> So, what I wanted to ask: >>>> >>>> >>>> In what functional way do the new python-based install_initd and >>>> remove_initd differ from the old, c-based ones? >>>> >>>> >>>> Will the old ones not be able to correctly manage the new BLFS init >>>> scrips due to missing functionality? >>>> >>>> >>>> And if not, what is missing from the old ones? I would then try to >add >>>> this to initd-tools, so I can still use those. >>> >>> For a minimal install on a router why do you need to install a boot >>> script at all? For LFS based systems you can always use 'make >>> install=<package> from the bootscripts tarball. >> >> Because I like to activate init scrips using install_initd and l also > >> don' t have "make" on my routers. >> As my routers do dns/dhcp server, iptables, rely on ntp for time, use > >> nginx for the web interface and ssh for administration, etc etc, I do > >> have the need to manage bootscripts. >> >> >> I'm also really not in anyway complaining about the switch to python, >I >> just have a specific use-case and wanted to know how I can stay as >close >> to lfs/blfs as possible while still be able to handle my differences. >> >> I naturally would be completely lost maintaining my own distro >without >> such a great upstream as lfs/blfs, so forgive me if I stepped on any >toes. > >No toes. :) > >Your distro, your rules. > >I'd suggest just using the previous version of lsb_release for your >custom installations. > > -- Bruce > >-- >http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev >FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html >Unsubscribe: See the above information page
:-) I wear steel toes! No seriously, if you want to poke around with the old ones, that's fine, but probably not necessary in your case. Just remove $first from mountvirtfs and you should be good as long as no DMs. --DJ -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
