Chapter 6 building against /tools still?

Joshua Murphy poisonbl at
Tue Dec 2 21:21:02 PST 2008

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Matthew Burgess
<matthew at> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:16:49 -0800, Bryan Kadzban <bryan at> wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>> Because this was a consensus made by several people back in the early
>>> part of 2006, I'd like to open it up for comment again now. Anyone mind
>>> if we do the more technically correct thing and move grep up in the
>>> build order of chapter 6?
>> I'm not sure whether I was part of the consensus in 2006, but I don't
>> mind moving grep.  (As long as it doesn't pull a ton of other stuff with
>> it, but it doesn't look like it'll do that.  :-) )
> Likewise, I'd prefer we were technically correct, and this seems pretty trivial to me.
> Regards,
> Matt.
> --
> FAQ:
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Quiet voice from a lurker here to say +0.1 to moving grep up to where
it should be from a "technical" side (I don't lay claim to any more
than that little bit of a vote)... I remember the alphabetizing from
when it happened and understood the reasoning, it makes the placement
of things that are otherwise capable of being handled in parallel
sensible while making things that are needed sooner stand out simply
because they are out of order. It also forced a newer look into what
actually *was* needed when, which is always useful to do once in a
while. Looking back at the discussion...
On Fri, Mar 3, 2006 at 12:42 PM, Gerard Beekmans
<gerard at> wrote:
> I don't see a technical reason for symlink vs. no symlink (and
> subsequently moving the Grep package itself). I think it's a
> preference what is considered "nicer."

And looks like Dan Nicholson, with the lack of disagreement from all
others involved, made the final move of adding the symlink (rather
than moving the package).

@Bryan: As for what your stance was then, it looks like you were on a
vacation at the time, first time I see your name was over a week later

Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list