plans and wishes

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Sun Jan 18 18:04:56 PST 2004






> It's not just esthetic reasons. AFAIK this order has been put
> together through trial & error, but was never documented.

True, wasn't documented exactly why but the reasoning behind it is
on record... Touchy feely reasoning maybe (as was the reasoning behind
the toolchain build to begin with) but it has stood the test
of time
(and many major increases in version number for most packages,
not to mention still works perfectly for 2.6 NPTL migration... well the
plfs scripts (only MINOR updates from whats under my homedir) do anyway
which have a few more ch5 packages)

Trial and error doesn't adequately describe the process used though.

For the record will be testing changes, but trust me I'll be cursing
the names of all "alphabetical ch5" people to the stars for every
hour spent re-inventing the currently perfectly functioning wheel, and
for every resource I have to divert from getting the build for LFS-6.0
sorted (and I reckon it's closer than most of you think, its at BLFS
testing now).

The "alphabetical order" people I believe have just volunteered to
burn their own time building and testing (everything, including initial
binutils and gcc) from an old distro. If I'm gonna have to do it,
YOU'RE gonna have to do it.

[R]




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list