Poll about package management

[Jeremy Huntwork]

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Some people do want to use LFS in production. There are only two ways to deal 
> with this situation: make LFS work perfectly, or drive them away from LFS, e.g., 
> by including somewhere in the preface some concrete missing features that make 
> LFS unsuitable for production use, and give some foundations to the fact that 
> these features are really required.

I understand your motive Alex, but I think the inherent problem with 
this stance is that 'unsuitable for production use' is a relative term. 
For some environments, all that is required for a Linux system to be 
suitable for a particular production use is that it handles whatever 
tasks it has been assigned reliably and consistently.

In one small office that I provided service for, they needed a reliable 
network file server with no other real needs - essentially a drop box 
for multiple people. That equated to LFS with a minimal Samba 
configuration. That machine has had an uptime of over a year and it gets 
used daily.

--
JH