El Miércoles, 15 de Agosto de 2007 15:07, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > 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. :)
The question are: What changes would be needed to let *LFS books be PM-aware? Without forcing the use of an specific PM implementation, of course. Would that changes have some impact on that of us (read users) that don't want/need to use a PM? As least to me, if_something_work_as_needed==don't_upgrade, small-upgrade==reinstall_on_top, big_upgrade==build_a_ new_system. And lastly, like Rady said, the master goal of the LFS project is to provide educational books about how to build a Linux system. If PM support is added, who will writte the text explaining how to set-up and use a PM? > 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. LSB dictates that RPM must be available, but it don't tell that RPM must be used. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
