Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/05/06 01:10 CST: > 5. Reduce workload by reducing the number of packages in BLFS and > allowing users to be less dependent on it, since it's not supposed to be > a comprehensive guide to installing every piece of software someone > might want to use (or is it?).
Please, offer some suggestions of what should be removed. I would be against removing most, if not all. BLFS is a guide to installing the various open source packages out there. It certainly is not comprehensive, or even close to being all-inclusive. It is just a helpful guide for folks that like to build their own software and not use pre-compiled binaries. For anything but the most basic of libraries, and stand-alone single purpose utilities, the BLFS instructions require one to know what they are doing, why exactly they need what they are installing, and the big picture of their overall system needs. Cups, Samba, Databases, Kerberos, GNOME, KDE, DocBook. None of these package instructions are comprehensive. They are just a guide to assist you getting it installed in a consistent fashion on your filesystem. Configuration items are mentioned, but certainly aren't fully explained that you could follow them and expect everything to work. BLFS, like LFS, is a learning tool, with the expectation that folks have some clue of what is going on, what their goal is, etc. What do you envision BLFS should be, Chris? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 01:12:00 up 102 days, 10:36, 3 users, load average: 1.06, 1.03, 0.64 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
