no LFS in the Source section of Distrowatch??

Tushar T tush at
Tue Oct 29 07:39:18 PST 2002

Ladislav Bodnar wrote:

>Hmm... Technically you are right, it does qualify as a source-based 
>distribution. There are a few reasons why I haven't included LFS on that 
Technically it doesn't qualify as a distribution:) But its good to have 
it on distrowatch.

>2. LFS is a very basic system so the majority of the fields in the table would 
>be empty. This might create a perception that LFS is not rich in features.
How about adding BLFS packages to the list? Like you say, most of the 
people checking out the page may turn away after seeing the list blank.

>4. Once I include LFS, it will only be fair to include other similar distros 
>based on LFS or at least similar in concept. You might be surprised, but 
>there are quite a few of them: Arch, BYO, Core, LRs, Murix, Neat, TA, maybe 
>some others.
How about a hobbyist or some similar category.

>I have considered the idea, but my reasoning has always rejected it. I am open 
>to suggestion, so if you give me 6 reasons why it should be included, I might 
>just put LFS in. Also, what do others on the list think of this?
I agree with most of your reasoning, so no, it doesn't qualify for 

Tushar Teredesai
LFS ID: 1377

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list