more on required packages

John Arrowwood John.Arrowwood at merant.com
Fri Sep 1 13:23:04 PDT 2000


To YOU it is a development platform.  To me, it is a slim, sleek workhorse.
Different people are drawn to LFS for different reasons.  That's the reason
for "required" vs. "optional" in the first place...  :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Tie Ten Quee [mailto:highos at highos.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 3:45 AM
To: lfs-discuss at linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: more on required packages


Yo

On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 10:09:19AM +0200, Thomas 'Balu' Walter wrote:
> talking about autoconf - autoconf and automake are not needed until you
> want to do your own new config.in or makefile.in (while patching a
> packet or similar), correct?

Are you sure about that? The minute you patch...

> Most other things are essential for a running system (many programs need
> perl to do this or that)

I consider LFS to be a full development system...one needs automake/autoconf
for that

Just my 0.02 cents...

-
Jesse Tie Ten Quee - highos at highos dot com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20000901/368ad5c8/attachment.html>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list