Include BIND in the LFS documentation?

Arzola, Nelson NArzola at sla.com
Mon Jun 5 15:32:00 PDT 2000


Does anyone have a good reason that the latest bind (resolver) libraries
should not be part of the LFS?  I ask because I can argue both that it does
and does not belong.  I am just wondering what everyone else thinks.  BTW, I
think that bind should be part of the LFS, but wiser minds may prevail.


Why bind should not be part of LFS:
	* You can add it later (just remember to recompile affected systems)
	* This is a networking function and is not part of a truly basic
system
	* There is enough of bind in the GNU C library to meet most people's
needs
	* the LFS does not purport to be one-stop shopping on how to build
your Linux System -- only guidance on the process and technique.
Customizations are for the builder to implement on their own.  Add too many
options and the document gets bloated and overly complex.


Why bind should be part of the LFS:
	* Adding bind later requires recompiling various sources (namely
Perl).  It's not easy to figure out which programs will benefit from being
recompiled.
	* (IMHO) Few Linux systems are not connected to the network.  It
would be easy to tell people to skip the bind step at the appropriate place
to save space or time.  This at least gives people the choice.
	* (IMHO) Properly adding the latest bind libraries can be tricky.
The LFS, from my perspective, is to help people build their systems by
providing guidance for the tricky things involved with order and technique.


Opinions anyone?

Nelson Arzola
--
Mail archive: http://www.pcrdallas.com/mail-archives/lfs-discuss
IRC access: server: irc.linuxfromscratch.org port: 6667 channel: #LFS
News Reader access: news.pcrdallas.com
Unsubscribe: email lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list