Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:01 CST: > This brings up another question that I had brought up on LFS recently > <http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2005-July/052280.html>.
I will go on record as being against this proposal. Seems like Tush and I have been seeing differently lately, so I'd like to explain myself, and not to be seen as simply disagreeing. 1. The autotools are packages expected to be in a bare-bones system. At least in my opinion. 2. There are several BLFS packages requiring the autotools, so having them installed in LFS makes the BLFS team's job easier. 3. There are many, many times less packages in LFS with almost the same amount of Editors to keep up with the packages. 4. If we're thinking about removing autotools, then readline should also be considered for moving back to BLFS. There is really no good reason why readline needs to be in LFS, other than Zack Winkles wanted it and cried like a baby if he didn't get his way. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 23:06:00 up 113 days, 22:39, 2 users, load average: 0.36, 0.26, 0.20 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
