plans and wishes
Bill's LFS Login
lfsbill at nospam.dot
Thu Jan 15 16:00:42 PST 2004
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Alex Groenewoud wrote:
> > 1) When looking for a package, it's easier to find.
> > 2) A chaotic order _without_ giving a good reason is... plain silly.
Well, long before you addressed this, there was a reason. But you'd have
to search the archives to find it. The order was never "chaotic" (except
in your humble opinion, I quess). Going from memory, there were
dependencies and after a certain point the rest were alphabetic because
no good reason could be found to order differently. Then came "/static"
and then "PLFS" and the issue was not significant enough to require
That doesn't mean it was "chaotic" - it just hadn't been re-examined.
> > 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.
May I have an "Amen"? Amen!
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.
More information about the lfs-dev