An idea for a new development model

[Bryan Kadzban]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:07:40AM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:37:12AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > I'll go on record as -1.
> 
> 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. :)

I'm going to tentatively vote -1 for package management in LFS -- that
is, unless it doesn't break my current package management setup
(pkg-user hint FTW!).  If the changes don't break the pkg-user hint,
then I'd say +1; it's worth a shot at least.  DESTDIR=$dest on all the
packages, for instance, shouldn't hurt if $dest is empty.  And I'd bet
that most users would appreciate the book working with some kind of
package manager (as that seems to be the proposal).

For the LiveCD, I think it's a pretty good idea to use some fixed
package management, basically because it's limited in scope (just the
livecd image that you're going to build), and it makes life a lot easier
for the devs.  The cost seems fairly low (assuming the livecd devs can
agree on an implementation...  ;-) ), and the benefit seems pretty high.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20070815/8e064f48/attachment.bin