david567 wrote these words on 08/15/07 10:56 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: >> 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. >> > No, lets not forget that. However, showing an implementation of package > management is not in any way detrimental to the education of readers.
"Showing an implementation" is one thing. Incorporating it into the books is a completely different thing. No comparison. This discussion is about should we incorporate something into the book, not showing readers "an implementation". >> Package management is beyond the scope of showing how to compile >> packages (and which packages to compile). >> >> > I'm not convinced one way or the other. PM is not what makes linux > tick, but it may help keep it ticking. We've always worked with the underlying philosophy of "minimal". Said differently, "just enough to create a working bootable system". PM does not fall into that realm. If something were to be implemented, even a DESTDIR foundation without full PM capability, would ruin cut-and-paste capability for the scores of readers that don't want the bloat a PM brings into the picture. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:28:00 up 13 days, 11:19, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.05 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
