On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 04:34:11PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > > > 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. > Maybe license incompatabilites - one of the great things about building from source is that we can just build without having to worry about the details of some of the licenses when thay apply to binaries. We can also hack, or patch, the source - compare iceweasel and icedove to their upstreams. We used to warn about the limitations of --enable-official-branding in firefox, but we seem to have lost that.
I don't have an example, because I've never had to worry about this since I stopped providing a RescueCD, but I'm fairly sure there are packages which will require certain documentation to be installed. Maybe BLFS already installs it, maybe it doesn't, but it's another thing that would need to be checked if we were providing binary packages. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
