My plans

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Thu May 13 23:03:13 PDT 2004

Don Smith wrote:

> Jeremy Utley wrote:
>> Ed's there because Patch can utilize it in rare cases (very old 
>> patches).  Procinfo is useless, IMHO, and autotools, while nice, are 
>> certainly not needed for a base LFS install to reproduce itself.  
>> We've since added readline to HEAD for a similar reason, Bash and 
>> e2fsprogs can utilize it to provide additional functionality (in the 
>> case of e2fsprogs) or to allow for modularity (in the case of bash 
>> using external readline rather than internal).
> +1 move ed and procinfo to BLFS
>     (old and not used, definitely not required)
> -1 don't remove autotools
>     (they are after all tools commonly used by packages)
> -1 readline isn't necessary and should be in BLFS
OK, I'll explain this ONE MORE TIME, and this will be the end of it.

1) Ed is optional, but provides functionality to Patch (functionality 
that is rarely needed) - case could be made to leave it in on that 
basis, and if anyone complained much at all, I'd say leave it in.
2) Procinfo is useless, it's gone
3) Autoconf/Automake - Not needed by any package in LFS - can (and 
possibly should) be moved to BLFS - this one is up in the air
4) Readline provides functionality to Bash and E2fsprogs (Bash, if 
readline is not present, will statically link it's own internal copy of 
the readline lib, but will not provide this library for other
programs such as e2fsprogs).  So in effect, by NOT including readline we 
are limiting the functionality of these programs.

With that, I'm going to take some time away from these lists, cause 
noone is listening anyways.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list