Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/28/05 00:08 CST: > These pacakges are still not required on a base LFS.
The argument was that they weren't required in BLFS, however, since it's been proven that they *are* required in BLFS (and boy aren't we lucky that maintainers use semi-recent packages) you go back to the "not required in LFS" crutch. Please, answer me this, what is the harm in keeping libtool, automake and autoconf in LFS? Why make these common, everyday packages that most everybody (exceptions noted) *expects* to have installed, be in BLFS? This discussion comes up every 6 months it seems like, and the same old tired arguments are brought up. The end result being that nothing changes. :-) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 00:11:01 up 64 days, 9:35, 3 users, load average: 1.03, 0.99, 0.62 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
