plans and wishes
gschafer at zip.com.au
Wed Jan 14 12:47:23 PST 2004
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:43:23AM -0500, Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> I agree. And now let's hear a rational reason from someone that
> alphabetic order is desirable.
Nobody is suggesting the Ch 5 order be changed or even become alphabetical.
I am suggesting that we document the rhyme and reason to it. If there is no
rationale for it then we just say so. I don't see this as a big deal. "The
ch 5 order is a result of trial and error and is known to work well in most
situations" or similar.
Ch 6 is a different story. Alex originally suggested it be alphabetized
where possible (excluding core toolchain) because having it alphabetized is
a _reason_ for the order where currently there is no reason.
It is better to have some reason than no reason!
My knowledge of the toolchain and overall build method suggests that having
Ch 6 alphabetized (excluding core toolchain) should be mostly possible.
Additionally, this sentiment from Ryan:
"Chapter 6 should try to accomplish the same thing, remove our dependence
on /tools as much as humanly possible early on in the piece..."
is a noble goal and quite logical. But my ICA stuff which is based on
comparing actual bytes leads me to believe that this notion is not that
important, mainly because the core toolchain is already so beautifully taken
care of in early Ch 6. I have the tool and the data to prove it and
therefore can speak authoritatively on the subject.
We already touch on this in the toolchain tech notes:
"The overall goal of Chapter 5 is to provide a sane, temporary environment
that we can chroot into, and from which we can produce a clean, trouble-free
build of the target LFS system in Chapter 6."
More information about the lfs-dev