Merge BLFS and LFS? [Was Re: What is LFS anyway?]

Alexander E. Patrakov see at the.sig
Mon May 10 19:08:38 PDT 2004


Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> 
> 
>>Another point that I fail to understand is "How does including 
>>something in LFS rather than BLFS provide more educational value?" 
>>Would installing hotplug or dhcp or ... in LFS provide more 
>>educational value than including them in BLFS? If yes, we should 
>>probably just merge the two projects into a single one. That would 
>>give the users maximum educational value, provide a coherent set of 
>>instructions that work together and at the same time reduce further 
>>discussions on where a particular package belongs.
> 
> 
> Though I said the above with a tinge of humor, I would like to throw 
> this idea out in the open. How about merging the two projects into a 
> single one? The advantages that I see are:
> 
>     * The instructions will be synchronized. No more, "which version of
>       LFS does BLFS support or should support" type questions.
>     * BLFS would receive more QA. Support and development will be pooled.
>     * No more lengthy discussions on which package belongs where. We can
>       concentrate on more useful discussions :)
>     * Users would benefit since everything fits under one umbrella.
> 
> LFS could be organized into sections. Note that each
> 
>    1. Build the bootstrap phase in /tools.
>    2. Install and configure the "must have" packages (most of the
>       current LFS packages).
>    3. Install and configure packages that would make LFS self-sustaining
>       and independent from the host (dhcp, wget, lynx, etc.). The user
>       can reboot into LFS after this section.
>    4. The rest of BLFS organized into various sections based on their
>       functionality and approximate installation order.
> 
> The disadvantages:
> 
>     * Would increase the size of LFS Book.
>     * The traffic on lfs-* would increase so developers who like to only
>       concern themselves with a subset would be inconvenienced.
>     * We are used to having LFS and BLFS independent and it does not fit
>       our mindset :)
> 
> Opinions?
> 
-0.5

LFS is what is done before and in chroot. BLFS is what is done after 
reboot. Since a clear separation point exists, there is no obvious need 
to merge two projects.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov
To get my address: echo '0!42!+/6 at 5-3.535.25' | tr [!-:] [a-z] | tr n .



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list