What is LFS anyway?

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat May 8 07:13:59 PDT 2004

Kevin P. Fleming said the following on 08-05-2004 15:26:
> Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> <snip>
>> - we only add packages if they are a (new) build requirement for a 
>> base package
> This is too restrictive; the wording needs to allow for things that are 
> not requirements but are strongly suggested as "companion" packages 
> (i.e. udev/hotplug).

Well, that is debatable, of course.  I wouldn't make it too permissive 
in order to keep the package set tight. It doesn't have to be minimal 
but we don't want someone to install a lot of packages before he's 
finished (that's very demoralizing). It is very difficult to draw the 
line somewhere objectively if you allow "companion" packages. IMHO, if a 
package is optional, it should be in BLFS.

To take the example of hotplug: if we add hotplug because it is a 
companion package of the kernel, should we also add ppp, jfsutils, 
reiserfsprogs, xfsprogs, pcmcia-cs, alsa, hdparm, usbutils, pciutils, 
(...)? How do we determine this? And if we remove hotplug, should we 
also remove modutils, procps, psmisc, etc.?

The point is that we need a set of clear, objective criteria which will 
answer these questions. Let's try to make the criteria first and then 
see what packages remain and not retrofit our criteria based on what 
packages we'd like to see in LFS.

Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list