no LFS in the Source section of Distrowatch??

Tushar T tush at yahoo.com
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 
inclusion.

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
LFS ID: 1377
http://tushar.lfsforum.org/

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



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list