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:
><snip>

> > 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
attention.

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!

><snip>

> Ken

-- 
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