bdubbs at swbell.net
Sat May 22 10:35:38 PDT 2004
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>Should LFS configure & support dynamic devices?
Let me elaborate. Adding dynamic devices is more appropriate for
BLFS. LFS has never been an end result, but only a resonable stopping
point. To make an LFS system usable, a user MUST go on to BLFS to add
the functionality that any reasonable person needs for a computer
system. BLFS already suggests recompiling the kernel in the X section
if the user didn't do it properly in LFS. It has the user recompile the
shadow suite when adding PAM. How is this different from adding
something like udev? You don't have to have it and users may not be
comfortable with it or may not want it. Optional packages should
generally be added to BLFS and LFS should be maintained as a base
package that is really as simple as possible.
There is an argument that udev will be required in linux 2.8. Well,
looking at kernel.org I don't see linux 2.7.0 released yet. We are a
*long* way from linux 2.8.
Perhaps sometime in the future when udev becomes more common it should
be transitioned from BLFS to LFS, but I don't see that right now or
anytime in the near future.
More information about the lfs-dev