glibc-version

Albert-Jan a.j.nijburg at definite.nl
Thu Mar 28 08:00:33 PST 2002


yes your right wasn't thinking in that direction ..



"Gerard Beekmans" <gerard at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote in message
news:20020328153828.GC2558 at gwaihir.linuxfromscratch.org...
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 03:36:01PM +0100, Albert-Jan wrote:
> > It kinda feels wrong adding a script to lfs
> > cuz your not doing it all your self  anymore
>
> Then don't use it. Or look at the script and run the commands manually. We
> don't have people type out the Glibc source and configure it using a
> script. All the bootscripts are scripts.
>
> And, you really don't want to manually type ouf all the commands necessary
> to check an installation against a log file. Scripts aren't necesarrily
bad
> and polute the "lfs spirit" so to say. They just make life easier. It's
not
> that you're going to implement a package managing system that we decide on
> and you can't easily change it. This checklfs package is just an added
> thing under the "self diagnostics scripts" umbrella. Too many problems can
> be fixed by people themselves if they know beforehand that some programs,
> for example, aren't statically linked. 90% of the emails sent to
> lfs-support can all be avoided. If nothign else it'll make our lives
easier
> and we can get more LFS releases out there more quickly...
>
> --
> Gerard Beekmans
> www.linuxfromscratch.org
>
> -*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
> --
> Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put 'unsubscribe lfs-book' in the subject header of the message
>


-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-book' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-book mailing list