Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 8/5/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
FHS is good, not so sure about LSB since it mandates lot more packages
like PAM which are not in LFS.
I didn't read this as "let's go to each of these lists and match
precisely what is good in them". I read it as saying, "we have a package
under consideration for inclusion - is that package mandated by any of
these standards."
I know, but if the policy states LSB and if the package is mandated by
LSB, it would be hard to say when someone asks PAM to be included in
LFS-core.
I think Jeremy means that "is this package in the LSB?" is simply added
to the list of "possible reasons to add this package to LFS", and I did
read Matt's original post as simply a list of criteria, not that any one
of those criteria is, by itself, a guarantee that any package will or
will not be added.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
