What next?

Ben ben79 at bigpond.net.au
Thu Jun 27 19:19:50 PDT 2002


I don't see why everyone is getting so emotional. It's no biggie.

I agree that ftp/http clients should not be in LFS. But maybe we need to 
communicate the fact that they are missing better to the reader. I think 
this would make the book better.

Remember that your first ever LFS build is pretty dawnting - there is alot 
to think about, so it is understandable that even experienced linux users 
might miss the fact that LFS lacks a http/ftp client.

So why don't we simply tell them that while they are downloading the other 
packages, they might like to download an ftp or http client of their 
choice, or not.

Charles Lacour wrote:

>>>> matthias at winterdrache.de 06/27/02 02:49PM >>>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:49:57 -0500 "Charles Lacour"
> <Clacour at greyhound.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I have found what seems to be a glaring omission in the LFS. I can't
>>> find ftp, lynx, netcat, wget, or anything else I know how to use to
>>> download files with.
> 
>>This is intentional and will always remain like this.
> 
> Ok, why? What useful purpose does that absolute refusal serve? I'm not
> trying to knock the LFS for doing something "wrong", I'm trying to improve
> it. It seems to me to be one very small step away from
> 
> 
>> This is where the Beyond Linux From Scratch book comes into play. Check
>> out http://beyond.linuxfromscratch.org/
> 
> 
> Somebody in that situation CAN'T check that out. That's my whole
> point,that something (it needn't be large or complicated) needs to be
> added so that the new user can get the rest of the packages (or for that
> matter, packages from other sources).
> 
> I repeat my earlier request. Tell me how, using ONLY that which is in the
> LFS at the point at which I boot my new kernel (and are supposedly
> independent of the host system) I'm supposed to get even to the web page
> of beyond.linuxfromscratch.org, let alone pull any files down. (Or if
> you're unwilling to do that, tell me what good a system that has what is
> in the base LFS is good for. (In the case I'm speaking of, where one has
> no other resources get other packages on it.))
> 
> I have no problem at all with there being a lot of things (several dozen
> utilities, X, window managers, any sort of server program, etc.) being
> outside the scope of the LFS proper. I see a lot of virtues in keeping it
> as small and simple as possible.
> 
> The current setup is somewhat like giving someone the materials and
> detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to build a shed, except that
> following the instructions precisely results in one being inside a shed
> with no door. I'm saying that the design should have a small revision made
> to it so that the constructor can get out of the shed.

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



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list