On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:07:40AM -0600, 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'm going to tentatively vote -1 for package management in LFS -- that is, unless it doesn't break my current package management setup (pkg-user hint FTW!). If the changes don't break the pkg-user hint, then I'd say +1; it's worth a shot at least. DESTDIR=$dest on all the packages, for instance, shouldn't hurt if $dest is empty. And I'd bet that most users would appreciate the book working with some kind of package manager (as that seems to be the proposal). For the LiveCD, I think it's a pretty good idea to use some fixed package management, basically because it's limited in scope (just the livecd image that you're going to build), and it makes life a lot easier for the devs. The cost seems fairly low (assuming the livecd devs can agree on an implementation... ;-) ), and the benefit seems pretty high.
pgpU1R9KXKxEO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
