Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:37:12AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: >> I'll go on record as -1. > > I'm not going to push to get this into LFS. If the vast majority of > those with a voice here are for PM in LFS, great. If not, great. :) > >> I feel we should mention it, provide links to the various alternatives, >> and drive on. We are not a distribution. We are a book that shows how >> to compile Linux from scratch. Let's don't forget that. > > Understandable. Of course, it could be argued that part of what makes a > Linux system is package management. It is after all part of the LSB.
You mean RPM is part of the LSB. they REQUIRE that package management be fully RPM compatable. far beyond what a base standard should be in my opinion. the real reason that package managers are a bad thing, the bloated "requirements" of the meta packages in them. grab yourself a current debian install, and install KDE on it, minimal KDE without the kdeedu, games, development, pim package groups. you can't, Debian made the KDE meta package require 100% of all optional KDE software to install the base KDE. Debian did the same type of bloat with the Gnome meta package requirements, put way to much as absolutely required. I think Randy's phrasing is a far better way for the LSB to handle package managers. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
