plans and wishes

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at nospam.dot
Wed Jan 14 05:43:23 PST 2004


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:

> > Gday Ryan. I'm wary too. But we still don't have a rationale for the Ch 5
> > order. Does it even exist ? :-)
>
> Crikey, that was a year ago (pretty much to the day)

I was wondering if everyone had forgotten those posts.

>
> Initial reasoning was that we can't trust anything on the host
> whatsoever.

And that still holds AFAICT.

><snip the recounting of the reasons>

> You know... looking at it now it's probably wouldn't hurt to revisit
> it again, at the time this was the first buildorder that worked nicely
> (accomplished during a bleary eyed 1am+ effort), after that I just left
> it alone (if it aint broke...)
>
> Whatever we do, for chapter 5 we should do the buildorder in whatever
> way minimises the use of host tools as early as possible, not for the
> aesthetics of having everything in alphabetical order.
>
> Chapter 6 should try to accomplish the same thing, remove our dependence
> on /tools as much as humanly possible early on in the piece...

I agree. And now let's hear a rational reason from someone that
alphabetic order is desirable. I'll start the ball rolling with the only
reasons I can see, none of which are technical in nature and all of
which are rather weak from my POV.

1) Someone likes it because it's easier to remember the sequence.
2) That aids education.
3) It looks "prettier".
4) It makes sorting easier.
5) ???

Down sides are that it accomplishes none of the things Ryan reminds us
about.

>
> Will have to have a think about it...
>
> Whatever we choose, we'll have to set a minimum spec linux distro
> to build from for testing ( I use RH6.x, after upgrading the hosts
> make to 3.80 )
>
> [R]
>
>

-- 
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Bill Maltby
lfsbillATearthlinkDOTnet
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list