install-log .. package control

Jasper Stein jasper at
Wed Jan 8 05:47:30 PST 2003

Rob Park wrote:
> Alas! Jasper Stein spake thus:
>>Rob Park wrote:
>>>No, it's definitely a bad idea -- what package manager would we choose?
>>>Let the user decide for himself, the book should stay out of it.
>>Well? The book makes other decisions too. LILO v. GRUB, MAKEDEV v. 
>>devfs, vim vs. nano, etcetera.
> That's because the goal of the book is to produce a system that is
> capable of producing itself. Without a bootloader, it can't boot, and
> you can't make it with itself. Without the devices in /dev, you have the
> same problem.
> You don't need a package manager to build LFS, so it should not be in
> the book.

Yes, I agree with this, but you seemed to say that LFS shouldn't include 
a package manager because we don't know which one is the best.

And even so one might argue if we really really /really/ need (e.g.) 
vim, SysVInit, and some of the other packages. LFS being what it is, we 
do, but you can build systems that don't have these. Similarly you can 
build an LFS-like system that does have a package manager. LFS is only 
one choice of many between a superminimal bare-bones Linux shell and a 
fully capable super-distro. So one could argue that it is wise to 
include a package manager from the beginning.

(just for the record - I don't use one myself, and I like it that way)

+++ Out of Cheese error +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Redo from Start +++

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

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list