Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/11/05 15:29 CST: > This, IMHO, is a necessary step for LFS to be considered technically > accurate.
You asked if anyone had any comments or opinions so I offered mine. It disagrees with your opinion so you give a reason that is supposed to make be believe that the change is of some value. I think now more than ever I think the change is for show only, and has no technical merit. I cannot be made to believe that LFS is more technically accurate because the packages are built in alphabetical order. In fact; to me, it is less technically accurate. I am all for documenting which packages rely on one another. However, to use the excuse that the changes to build in alphabetical order make LFS more "technically accurate" is in my opinion absurd. If the change is put in, this is fine, as it makes no difference to me either way. I am simply offering my opinion. Which you asked for. But please don't advertise that because LFS builds packages in alphabetical order, it would be "technically accurate". Understand, this is my opinion on the change and reasons you've given for the change, it does not reflect anything personal against you or the work everyone has done so far on this change. It only reflects my opinion to the change. Hopefully, you understand that it isn't personal, and my opinion is unlikely to change because of anything you say to try and persuade and/or convince me otherwise. Folks are entitled to have an opinion that is in conflict with yours. -- 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] 15:33:00 up 78 days, 57 min, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.10, 0.38 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
