[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this on Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:04:03PM +0000. My reply is below.
> One can hardly blame the new LFS'er for wanting to carry on in his > nice new system. I'm not familiar with the ancient history of BLFS, but it seems to me there might be room for three products: BLFS-Part-One-Gnome or BLFS-Part-One-KDE to come between LFS and BLFS-Part-Everything-Else. I know I was (am) baffled by the absence of judgment calls made by BLFS, and I would be more comfortable, being nudged (as with LFS) in the direction of what is essential. BLFS-Part-One should contain, in the best judgment of its developers, those pieces that nearly everyone will need: Communications, X11, GUIs, languages (Java, Perl, and Python), browsers (Firefox), text editors (not emacs OR vi), and (Dare I mention it?) package management. As a practical matter it will provide most of the prerequisites for BLFS-Part-Everything-Else, which can then deal with just the top tier of the remaining utility applications and office-productivity suites. BLFS-Part-One should not require many (if any) decision points on the part of the newbie beyond selecting the GUI. BLFS-Part-Everything-Else should follow either BLFS-Part-One-Gnome or BLFS-Part-One-KDE equally well. It will contain those KDE, Gnome, or non-denominational apps deemed non-essential, and their prerequisites will generally be limited to either BLFS-Part-One-Gnome or BLFS-Part-One-KDE. Documentation for BLFS-Part-One need not be as descriptive as that required for BLFS-Part-Everything-Else. It will be more prescriptive and therefore more suited to presentation in plain text. -- .. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA .. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX .. 49° — Wind NW 14 mph — Sky overcast. Light rain. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
