My Plans

jeremy at hurricane.internal.jutley.org jeremy at hurricane.internal.jutley.org
Fri May 14 17:35:59 PDT 2004


On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:21:32PM -0700, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Nick Fotopoulos wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:37 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>BLFS assumes that everything in LFS is not optional. In case optional 
> >>packages are included, the strategy will need to be changed.
> >>    
> >>
> >But there are lots of packages that could easily be argued are optional
> >that are included in the base LFS.
> >
> Like?

Currently, Ed, procinfo come to mind.

> 
> Anyways what I was referring to is how the BLFS Book handles packages 
> that are installed in LFS. Currently, BLFS will always assume that bash, 
> mktemp, autotools, gettext, etc. are installed. So they are not shown as 
> dependencies in BLFS. If LFS starts adding tags such as "This package is 
> optional", then BLFS will have to change its current strategy.

Noone, to my knowledge, is proposing that we have packages in LFS that
the user chooses to install.  Rather, we're planning to expand the packages
to provide functionality that wasn't present earlier, but it's still intended
that the user install those packages.  If the user makes a concious effort to
not install it, well, that's their own fault, just like before.

-J-

> 
> -- 
> Tushar Teredesai
>   mailto:tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
>   http://linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
> http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
> -- 
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list