[RFC] On LFS' Package Selection Policy
Richard A Downing
richard at langside.org.uk
Fri Aug 5 08:29:09 PDT 2005
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> During the recent thread on whether or not Cracklib should be introduced
> to LFS, the lack of an official policy on what criteria a package has to
> meet in order to be included in the book was highlighted. So, to
> correct that, I'm going to get the ball rolling (after first donning my
> flameproof suit!) with the following list. This is by no means supposed
> to be comprehensive or reflect in any way the packages included in the
> current book. It's simply a list of what I think of as sensible
I have no particular problems with this list. However, a lot of it is
subjective, and I still think you need a published procedure to validate
the decision with the user group, perhaps giving greater weight to
editors of LFS and BLFS than general correspondents.
It's not possible for one person to get this 'right', even with such a
clear list of critieria, you need to decide if it's important to get the
team to buy-in too, or if you want to be an autocrat.
I don't mind 'autocrat', in which case the procedure is easy: 'Matt and
Gerard read the list discussion for a while and then publish their
decision there'. This is what we have now.
More information about the lfs-dev