On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:07:15 -0600 Robert Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2008 12:37:50 pm TheOldFellow wrote: > > > > My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method, > > AND have a Package Management system, AND have a defined way of > > managing updates. THEN, I think ALFS and BLFS should use the chosen > > PM. > > > > I feel these are things we should definitely integrate from diy-linux. > The new build method is very promising, and will be very helpful for > the future when everyone expects their OS to be 64 bit. > > The way package management is handled is also something we should learn > from. PM is allowed for, even encourages, but is not required. I feel > this is an important point. PM should not be mandated, users should be > able to choose a package management system, or none at all. Well, I think it should be mandated, and the choice of which to use made and integrated. I say this so that BLFS can depend on it being there. The choice should be - you can choose to leave it out, but then when you use BLFS, you'll know how to alter it won't you. > Adding package management would not turn LFS into a distro, if the > builder is given a choice. Instead, I think with a scheme like this, > LFS could evolve from a book on how to build your own linux system into > a book on how to build your own linux distro. And this is really 'Your > Distro, Your Rules." True nuff, but we also say: If you stick to the book you'll build a working system. That's the LFS guarantee. But if you can't be the guy that makes the rules, then the fun comes from breaking the rules. Best wishes, Richard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
