On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:34:33AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I think the impetus for this discussion is really "How do we issue a > release version of BLFS with limited editor resources?" I don't think > anyone proposed removing X or KDE or Gnome completely. > > Splitting up into multiple books is a reasonable proposal. There may be > a way to create multiple books that pick and choose what would be > included. The only real problem with that is fixing the xref statements > to other parts of the book not in the subset being considered. > > My thought of splitting the book is those things that need X and those > that don't. For instance jpeg and png, while providing for the > manipulation of images, do not need X. The tricky packages are things > like ImageMagick that can be built without X, but uses it if present. > After reading today's postings, I'm not against splitting the book, I just don't see what help it will really provide. There is the shorter-term issue of getting *a* release (either minimal or fuller), and then there is what happens later. I'm assuming the idea is to update separate books at different times - what happens when the version needed by one of the books conflicts with the version in the 'common' book, but the alternative version breaks soemthing else in the common book ?
I think ripping out the things that nobody cares about has to be the best way to start. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
