On 12/11/05, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/11/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.' Note, too that in the proposed branch and build order > > *all* dependencies will be listed - even the ones that are satisfied by > > the alphabetical order. Nothing will be unknown. > > There are reasons. I know Greg opened that bug, but it was his and > Ryan's own work on PLFS, using ICA that determined a lot of the > ordering. Damned archives are too big! I knew I should have > bookmarked more things last time I did this. I'll get links soon.
MSB separate ch. 5 and ch. 6 - contains lots of build order discussion at the bottom. This is the major justification for the ordering I think. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2001-November/021382.html Greg's first ICA post http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2003-March/033028.html Proof that the build was at one time byte-for-byte possible http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2003-March/033054.html Gerard asks about the plfs ordering http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2003-May/033958.html Ugh. Too much looking through the archives. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
