On 10/9/07, Walter Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Simon Geard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Installing one or two tools like Links isn't exactly a major change to > >the system - it's a trivial build that'll take a minute or two of your > >time to perform. Would you really prefer to spend hours writing scripts > >to do xml transformations, just to avoid installing a simple package? > > That's a very good point. Except that I want to start creating pacman > packages for everything new I add to the system and as I haven't done this > before it would require some experimentation.
First thing to note is that what's in LFS isn't supposed to be a feature complete system. It tries to create a general development system for you to build on. So, if links needs to be part of your base install, you shouldn't feel like you're doing something wrong. My "base install" is considerably larger than what's in LFS since my barrier for "minimum for usability" is higher. Nothing wrong with that. If you're experimenting with a package manager, it may be best to just install the needed tools now and just overwrite them once you get your actual packages in place. Not ideal, but you can always smooth the edges for the next run. As an aside, what's the difference between less and links? I.e., why is it OK to have less be an unpackaged part of LFS, but links must be a pacman package? I guess that sort of goes back to the first thing I said: the borders of LFS are blurry at best. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
