On 17-02-2015 11:03, Pierre Labastie wrote: > What do you think? I think that either g-i should be built early when > building a full book, or should never be built. Three packages seem to > require it, so they'd need to be tested without g-i. But if really it is > impossible to build them without g-i, g-i should be recommended almost > everywhere:
For my builds, I consider it always recommended and build it as early as I can. Learned it the hard way, as you are now. Needed some discussions in the past and remember Ken telling me the good order he used (uses). However, remember people disliking it and trying to keep it optional. If they still think that, it would be interesting hearing from them. Whatever you decide, is good for me, but as written above, "my book" will consider it almost required. Thanks for investigating this issue. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
