If you call this that way ok. But marking some packs as optional that is really educational in my mind.
The user can decide wether to include that not essential stuff like devel-packs ... regards -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von Randy McMurchy Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 17:01 An: LFS Developers Mailinglist Betreff: Re: AW: Community discussion: including any devel-tools in LFS Chap. 6 Feldmeier Bernd wrote these words on 12/21/05 09:44 CST: > absolutely not against the goal of LFS, > because pointing out how a sane working > system can be created has nothing to do > with any dev-tools installed. A "sane working system". Is this what you call a bare-bones just-finished LFS build with no other packages. I'm sorry, but you just won't find many folks that agree with your analysis. > BTW, Greg did a great job with his DIY > approach that has also some optional > packs available. > > This and many more could be discussed here > and also the package manager debate could > be seen as an option like in Gregs great stuff. I can't help but think this is nothing but trolling. -- 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] 09:57:00 up 87 days, 19:21, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.12, 0.19 -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
