Pure LFS Hint - good to go
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Feb 20 19:58:06 PST 2003
On February 20, 2003 07:56 pm, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Gerard, have you had a good look at the hint yet? There are some possible
> obstacles to getting it into the book. Number one, due to more rebuilds and
> a few more Ch 5 packages, the whole process will take a lot longer. There
> is also the "make check" stuff in there which really blows out the time
> even more.
Yes I read the full hint as it appeared this morning.
I'm actually not worried about the fact that it takes a lot longer to compile.
We are doing all this work to improve the overall quality. If it means some
extra time compiling to get there, that's acceptable to me. I rather do it
perfectly right than compromise some of the purity out of build time
What I would perfer at this point: The full hint in the book and the shorter
version as a hint. The book can then have a few sentences outlining what the
shorter version of the doc does differently, that it saves you some time (if
you build from an LFS system that was build from a full pure-lfs setup, you
can affort to be less anal because you can already trust your toolchain to be
perfect) but will be less thorough, or anal if you will.
> It's not that different to current LFS. It should work, but definitely
> won't be as anal as the hint, and it would instantly solve a lot of the
> current LFS gripes.
> Anyway, I prefer full blown purity so back to the hint for me :-)
I think a lot of us agree with that sentiment. Time is a small price to pay
for the comfort of knowing it's done right and might even meet with aproval
from a technical point of view.
And lastly, that is possibly raises the bar a bit is not a huge deal either.
So: let's have it! (the full blown hint)
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
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