On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:58:24 -0500 Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is kind of a brave request, and I'm fully prepared to be shot down. > In fact, I think I'd be surprised if the group went for it. ;) However > after thinking about this for some time, I'm going to venture a request > and see what comes of it. > > I've been reading and attempting to apply in my spare time Matthias > Benkmann's hint, 'More Control and Package Management using Package > Users'. snip > So. I had been thinking it would be nice if LFS and BLFS adopted (some > of) this approach. Again, I fully recognize that this is new ground in a > way and that many people will think, "it is a hint and should stay a > hint", but, IMHO, there are many techniques employed here that a default > LFS user could learn from and benefit by. -1 (Very Loudly) Unix isn't designed to be built this way. It's interesting that it CAN be. It adds too much complexity - and yes I have tried it - it made management HARDER. Much of what Matthias has done has been admirable - we owe the separation of the book into chapters 5 and 6 to him - but this is far too radical. If you put this in the book, then I, for one, will NEVER EVER BUILD it again. I'll maintain my own version without this complexity. This looks like tinkering for the sake of something to do. It doesn't move the build method forward at all. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
