plans and wishes

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Thu Jan 15 15:31:51 PST 2004


On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Alex Groenewoud wrote:

>
> > And now let's hear a rational reason from someone that
> > alphabetic order is desirable.
>
> 1) When looking for a package, it's easier to find.
> 2) A chaotic order _without_ giving a good reason is... plain silly.
> 3) It highlights some of the dependencies as some packages are out of
> order.  (Of course not all essential dependencies are shown, as some
> happen to be alphabetical, but they could be mentioned somehere.)
>

(1) Makes sense.  (2) (no obvious order) doesn't give me a problem, the
same way that lots of less than ideal / "magic build order" things
don't upset me enough to worry me.  I can see it does upset you enough.
But (3) conflicts with (1) - try this guidance for your new order:

"When you want to find a package in the new build order, it will either
be in its alphabetical position, or if it isn't then it had to be moved
earlier to allow something else to build."

 I hope that isn't inconsistent with what you want to do ?  Now, how
does that make it easier to find a package ?  Basically, you begin at
the beginning of the chapter, until you find it.  Same as now.

> > > 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 )
>
> Including a list of minimum required versions wouldn't be a bad idea.
> I've been able to build an LFS4.8 system (a half-updated 4.1) using
> gcc 2.95.2, binutils 2.9.5, glibc 2.1.3, make 3.79.1 (Suse 7.0).
>
> Alex
>

4.8 ?  Why not 4.1++ ;)

Ken
-- 
This is a job for Riviera Kid!



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list