On 10/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Being a LFS user I can see Walter's point, and it's a good one IMO. I can't > understand why it seems so obscure to some on the list. Yet, there may be an > incredibly simple solution.
I have also been an LFS user for a while now. > If I can summarize his point: once one makes a bright, shiney, new, but very > Spartan LFS system, the next thing to do is add "essential" packages from > BLFS. But there is no way to read the BLFS book in one's fresh new Linux > system. One can hardly blame the new LFS'er for wanting to carry on in his > nice new system. What I do is get what I need from within the Live CD and store it on a local partition before rebooting. As for viewing the parts of BLFS I need, I either use another box, or if I don't have one available, lynx in the Live CD can save to text the entries in BLFS that I need to get a working system. > Ultimately what we have here is a "difference in expectations", and I, for > one, can see validity on both sides of the issue. > > OK, now it should be obvious that the new LFS'er had some other system which > he used to read the LFS book, which should still be available to read the > BLFS book. So a solution could be as simple as telling the LFS > user/installer: in the LFS book there is no "BLFS reader" in one's new LFS > system, so "use what you're using now." And what if what you are using now is lynx/some other web browser on the Live CD? > As a point of personal preference, I also don't much like "info". I'd prefer > not seeing that solution. It seems to be being "left behind" anyhow. > Man-pages seem to be the choice of everyone but FSF/GNU, with HTML coming on > strong, and XML waiting in the wings. The sooner info is replaced, the > better, IMO. But would it really distort what LFS "is" so much to add a page > about installing Links/Lynx to the LFS book? HTML is being used so often in > documentation for various packages that some sort of "browser" is one of the > first things one needs to install after LFS. There are two issues with this. The LFS system is not just intended for people who want a desktop system or similar. It can also be used for people who are setting up a server (web, mail, etc.) or other system. If you are building a MythTV based entertainment system, or will be booting into X, you don't want a links/lynx browser lying around. The other issue is that the package is already maintained in BLFS. Duplicating it will create a maintenance problem (not insoluble, but easy to get out of step or duplicate effort). > I agree with what seems to be Walter's essential point: once we have a nice > clean LFS system, we should be able to carry on from there, not still relying > on whatever support system(s) we had to use building LFS. A bridge to BLFS > isn't an unreasonable thing to expect. Being new to LFS myself, I didn't find having to use the host system a little longer to get things needed to continue that difficult to grasp. Perhaps, to make it explicit, a notice should be added in the "Rebooting The System" section, even though this is covered in the "What Now?" section as it is easy to miss that section if you are following the steps on a page by page basis. - Reece -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
