On 5/20/12 3:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> This exact reason, for the record, is why I really dislike binary >> distros. I *never* choose the same set of dependencies that are >> optional in the source, as the distro does. And because when they ran >> ./configure, they added a --with-foo flag, the package compiled with >> -lfoo, meaning the binary version of the package now has a hardcoded >> requirement for libfoo.so.N or whatever it is. > > I agree with this. I am updating vim in BLFS to add current patches and > do not like all the xorg dependencies in vim. Others may want gvim. > > There are a lot of decisions that must be made in BLFS about > dependencies. It's difficult to provide a package manager that does not > take away the user's choices.
I think perhaps the point is being missed here. The purpose of the proposal (creating and providing binaries) isn't for the _reader's_ use, (if someone found them and wanted to use them that's their decision), but it's solely for making development easier and providing documentation on how to use a packaging tool for creating an actual distribution. So there is no threat here to what LFS or BLFS currently is. I absolutely agree that choice of optional dependencies should be left completely to user discretion. A decision about how to build a binary (and provide a spec file) for use by other developers should be based completely, then, on what is useful for developing BLFS. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
