Pure LFS - good to go

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Thu Feb 20 19:53:24 PST 2003

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:47:20AM -0600, Matt Reppert wrote:
> Possibly. I haven't had time to look at purelfs yet ... how close is it to
> some of the established distro build sequences?

It is not close at all. It currently cannot be, due to the very nature of
what makes LFS tick. Distros are package manager oriented. LFS is not. Their
build environments are completely different to ours.

> And more importantly, what
> sort of fixes against *known release bugs* are we incorporating? Not all
> toolchain errors are due to compiling stuff wrong, after all.

Don't start me :-) If we were a distro with real paid developers then we
might be able to keep up. And don't give me the Debian argument :) Over the
past 12 or 18 months LFS has done a fair job of keeping up with the critical

> Rather than be bitter towards people who are pointing out our mistakes, it
> would be better to learn from them and improve our system. No? (Yes, I know
> that Alan never said anything here, but I think it was rather nice of Andries
> to make the mtab suggestion a couple of months back.)

Yes, but it wasn't niceness that brought him here. It was getting bogus bug
reports from LFS users methinks :)

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