Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > 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.
OK, then what's wrong with a tarball of binaries that we have created for this purpose? There could be a tarball of the base LFS system and then additional tarballs for certain packages or groups (e.g. xorg) of packages. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
