Qrux wrote: > "Oh, Gerard says it's not a minimal system.
That is correct. We could remove several things. > "He says it's a full-fledged dev system." No, that's not true. It's a standard base from which to build a full-fledged system. You have to decide what is full-fledged for yourself. A server is very different from a workstation. > Which I would claim in 2012 is completely bull. How many devs do you know > dev straight on the console? Of the oft-quoted tens-of-thousands who've > downloaded LFS, what percentage of them develop on the console? Actually, I do a lot via ssh which from the LFS system's point of view is little more than a console, but from my point of view is a window in a graphical screen. Occasionally I need to do a little at the console, but not often. > What, exactly, is the technical rationale for putting resizecons in LFS? Or, > marketing rationale--if the answer is going to be in terms of an identifiable > population that uses the console to dev in any significant way--because > there's already a working console. What exactly is the value proposition (in > terms of time spent) in making the console slightly (or even a lot) better? AFAIK, resizecons is a part of kbd. I don't use kbd, but some do for internationalization. When installing a package, we generally make it as complete as we can. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
