Randy McMurchy wrote:
>Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/11/05 19:43 CST: > > > >>The real thrust behind this research is to have a rationale for each >>package -- *why* it's built *when* it's built. IMO, that's 10 times >>better than just saying 'eh, the build order is a huge mess, we don't >>know why this package is before this other one, but it works so let's >>just leave it.' >> >> > >But, as far as I know, nobody except you thinks that. Right now, >I think the build order is because it was developed through years >of experience, trial and error and testing. And you are suggesting >to throw all that out the window and try a new build order, because >your (one person mind you) month or two of casually using a new build >order produces, what *you* say is a reliable build order. > >But, what about the thousands of builds before this that have proven >that the existing build works, and doesn't really need to be modified? > >Doesn't that history and years of experience amount to something >that should be dealt with before changing? > > > He isnt alone, I'm curious why the build order is the way it is now, and i'm curious if changing it around a bit can fix it and make a more stable system. Is that not worth investigating? I think it is. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
