An idea for a new development model

[M.Canales.es]

El Miércoles, 15 de Agosto de 2007 15:07, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> I'm not going to push to get this into LFS. If the vast majority of
> those with a voice here are for PM in LFS, great. If not, great. :)

The question are: 

What changes would be needed to let *LFS books be PM-aware? Without forcing 
the use of an specific PM implementation, of course.

Would that changes have some impact on that of us (read users) that don't 
want/need to use a PM? As least to me, 
if_something_work_as_needed==don't_upgrade, small-upgrade==reinstall_on_top,  
big_upgrade==build_a_ new_system.

And lastly, like Rady said, the master goal of the LFS project is to provide 
educational books about how to build a Linux system. If PM support is added, 
who will writte the text explaining how to set-up and use a PM?


> Understandable. Of course, it could be argued that part of what makes a
> Linux system is package management. It is after all part of the LSB.

LSB dictates that RPM must be available, but it don't tell that RPM must be 
used.

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:       http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:                           http://es.tldp.org