On Mon, 2012-12-24 at 10:34 -0800, Paul Rogers wrote: > For myself, after my first LFS-4.1 build, all by hand with copious > written notes from the book, I began using a "directory watcher" called > "git" by Ingo Bruekel. It was apparently "abandon-ware", and I found a > few "fixes" necessary. And of course, the name got usurped. So I > renamed my version, but I still use it. My build scripts basically > encapsulate the commands in the book.
That's not a bad idea, actually - using filesystem monitoring to track file and directory creation during "make install". Nicer than the old LD_PRELOAD hacks I used to use, and probably faster than the DESTDIR approach I use now... > I think if we stripped away all the foliage from the systems we use, > we'd find underneath a fairly common, consistent set of packages--from > which our individual interests caused divergences, mostly by addition. Can you suggest some? Because from my point of view, my goal after an LFS build is to install a desktop, and a scattering of specific programs to go with it. And that basically means the "X Window" and "Gnome" sections of the BLFS book, plus the pages for "Firefox", etc, plus anything listed as a dependency for one of the above. So from my point of view, those "common sets of packages" correspond quite well to the sections in the BLFS book. What do you have in mind, that doesn't fit that model? Your post is somewhat short on examples, so it's a little hard to see what you're thinking of... Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
