What is LFS anyway?
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:
>> - 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.
More information about the lfs-dev