On 05/20/2012 04:34 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Seems my phone ate my previous response...easier to type on a real keyboard anyway. > 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
It omits the core point of LFS...education. I dislike providing binary packages to users, but a working example of how to create those binary packages is something we've lacked for a long time, plus getting those packages that don't honor DESTDIR explained with a working example chroot...I just can't (or possibly don't want to) see a downside as far as education or documentation is concerned. Yes, it'll undoubtedly be a bit hairy at first. As far as choosing what PM to use, I guess it is no different than making the decision to use vim over emacs (an equally nasty holy war). As long as concepts learned are applicable to other PMs, then it is all good. I suspect a good deal could be taken from other consumers of pacman (that is what Arch uses, right?). -- DJ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
