plans and wishes

Don Smith dss-lfs at cfl.rr.com
Sat Jan 17 07:59:38 PST 2004


Alex Groenewoud wrote:

> Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> 
>>Initial build was published the way it was because
>>c) still held true from many varied starting hosts,
>>   even from thoroughly broken hosts (you should see some of my
>>   ancient systems, you'd cry).
> 
> Ah.  But a host broken in a different way than yours might require a
> different Ch5 order to work around its brokenness, might it not?  So I 
> don't think we should take broken hosts into account, except if they 
> were actual distros.

Why not? Why destroy an order *that has been tested on many different 
hosts* just to make if alphabetical? Ryan & Greg put a great deal of 
effort into the order of packages to make it work on the widest range 
possible. I seriously doubt one could come up with a broken system that 
would not compile with the current order and yet compile with another order.

BTW, there are not that many packages to go through. It is very easy for 
me to find the package I'm loking for in the TOC.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list