Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > No, it's as Dan says. It's all about hard-coded instances of tools that > coreutils provides winding up in installed packages. While I agree that it > may actually be something that should be worked out in the packages that do > the hard-coding, by having those core packages installed early, we avoid the > issue entirely in whatever package may decide to do it. > > As was heavily discussed around the time we did the re-ordering, there's no > technical advantage to building packages in alphabetical order, so that > should not be a high priority. What _is_ important is knowing which packages > should be built first and why.
Thanks Jeremy. Indeed, it is already documented in section 6.1. > And anything that doesn't require any special placement can just be done > whenever, so for them it becomes useful to place them in alphabetical order > just so that the book is organized and flows logically (and so an editor > knows where to place any new additions). Isn't it wonderful when we rediscover things. :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
