gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jun 27 10:08:20 PDT 2003
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 16:03, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> > Then again some programs configure checks for are only required during
> > configure's phase itself,
> And you don't consider those to be dependencies?
> Are we talking about build-time or run-time dependencies here?
I don't think I mentioned it in my last email but I was leading up to
both. There has been talk for a while now to devide the dependency lists
up into build-time and run-time lists. That way you know what you can
remove after you're done with LFS to get a true minimum system.
That's what I also meant with the "you need to manually weed things
out". A script will give you runtime+buildtime+crap. Crap must be
removed, runtime+buildtime split.
> If this happens during a normal LFS build, then LFS is broken and we have
> a much worse problem than an incorrect dependency list. If the dep list
> comes from a normal LFS build, this should not be an issue.
That assumes that the current build system is 100% perfect. I don't dare
assume that a dep list from a current-cvs system is to be deemed a good
> > is that you get a true dependency list. The (very) big con is that you
> > need to be very familiar with a program and know which missing files
> > will cause in different program behaviour.
> Why is that such a big con? Don't we have all this knowledge around here?
I hope so. If not, it'll just be time consuming to gather the knowledge.
/* Linux Consultant --- OSDN / DevChannel *
* Technical Writer --- CheapBytes */
/* 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