[LFS Trac] #684: Must re-evaluate package order then document the rationale.

Chris Staub chris at beaker67.com
Fri Mar 3 06:47:17 PST 2006

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/03/06 08:25 CST:
> My opinion is that it is more important to satisfy as many of the
> requisites for the test suites as possible. If that means something
> needs to be out of alphabetical order, then so be it.
> The whole purpose of this change is so that LFS can legitimately
> describe, and explain, why the order is the way is.
> If saying that this is before that and that is before this because
> it is necessary to fulfill requirements of foo's test suite, then
> to me that is a legitimate explanation of why the order is the way
> it is.
> In fact, keeping it alphabetical, for no other reason that to keep
> it alphabetical, when this breaks (or affords less quality of) test
> suites, is simply wrong. Of course, just IMHO. But that is what you
> were asking for.

Nobody is suggesting that everything be left in alphabetical order "just 
because" - packages are only put in alphabetical order when the order 
otherwise doesn't matter - satisfying all dependencies and documenting 
the reasons for the build order has *always* had priority over 
alphabetizing the order. Dan was just asking about the order of these 
particular packages specifically because of the fact that they have 
circular dependencies on each other. Do you have any opinion on it, 
other than to needlessly continue to harp about the "alphabetical" aspect?

More information about the lfs-book mailing list