plans and wishes

Jochen Schroeder jschrod at
Fri Jan 16 04:16:39 PST 2004

Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Alex Groenewoud wrote:
>>Bill's LFS Login wrote:
>>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.)
> I thought you didn't want to make the book for the editors? The user
> will *seldom* go "looking for a package". It's mostly start to finish
> for newer users and very experienced ones have no difficulty (for
> instance Ken (IIRC) and myself and many others) know how to use vim to
> quickly find what we hunt. And because we "know" about Chapters 5 and 6
> (I'm not going to discuss that issue here - I don't feel like getting
> into it) "alphabetic" offers *no* advantage to users like this. Only
> editors.
I think I have to jump into this discussion, considering that I would 
call myself a user, but not a very experienced one either, although I 
built a couple of lfs systems. I remember when I was first building lfs, 
I wasn't doing it in one go, but rather in several steps (with a lot of 
starting all over ;-). Because I was reading the book online I was 
always looking through the index to find the package where I stopped, 
and usually I would browse past the package at least once, so I 
definetly think alphabetical order in chapter 6 would be beneficial to 
the user. I agree with Ryans reasoning for the build order in tools 
trying to minimize the influence of the host. I also think that a 
alphabetical order for chapter 5 would be a lot less beneficial because 
it has less packages anyway. The most important thing is though, that 
the reason for the build order is given, which adds a lot to the 
educational value of the book.

All IMHO of course


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list