Hello, firstly, thanks for an excellent resource in BLFS - if it wasn't there I almost certainly wouldn't have been able to gain the insight to offer these thoughts.
I'd like to offer up a small concern over what BLFS promotes as the "Core" of Gnome2 and suggest that it could perhaps be cut down a little. Background: Because some of the packages curently in BLFS, GnuCash < 2.0 will be my case in point here, are still required to be compiled against the older Gnome libraries, BLFS contains a section entitled ""Gnome-1.4 libraries" in whch it states "This section contains GNOME 1.4 libraries, needed by some applications that have not yet been ported to GNOME 2.x. None of these libraries are needed for a GNOME desktop installation." Issue: What I'd like to see pointed out (or refuted ?!) is that not all of what BLFS terms as " GNOME Core Packages" for Gnome 2.X is actually needed to compile what can be thought of as Gnome2 software. " GNOME Core Packages" in BLFS would actually seem to be a Gnome desktop, complete file manager and terminal emulator. Justification: (hopefully) I was recently able to get a working, albiet not a fully-"pzazzed" but a still more than functional as a ledger, version, of GnuCash2 working on an LFS/BLFS system, using only the following 17 Gnome packages (and yes, before folk who are on both LFS/BLFS and Gnome lists dive in, I have bonuced this off a Gnome devel list and it does seem that what I ended up with was a current minimum) # Orbit2 # libbonobo # gconf # gnome-mime-data # gnome-vfs # libgnome # libglade # libart-lgpl # libgnomecanvas # libbonoboui # gnome-keyring # libgnomeui # libgnomeprint # gnome-icon-theme # libgnomeprintui # gail # gtkhtml Suggestion: (and it is only a suggestion) Might BLFS consider splitting what is really the core Gnome (assuming it can be defined to be less than what is specified that at present), ie that required for the development of other Gnome or written-for-Gnome packages, out from what seems to be a section on building a Gnome desktop. Interested as ever, to hear the thoughts of folk with a better grasp of the full story behind the way BLFS is laid out and by which itspackages are grouped together. Thanks again for making it possbile for me to air these views, Kevin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
