Randy McMurchy wrote: > 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". > > > Indeed, the book would need to be the 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. >
Adding sustainable/upgradeable is not too far off the mark. > 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. > > Agreed, a PM needs to be elegant (simple, robust, and unobtrusive). --- David Jensen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
