Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/22/06 01:25 CST: > I was about to correct this by simply submitting a patch to remove the > remaining references, but I notice that for several packages it > specifically says that Berkeley DB is "Recommended (over GDBM) - > installed in LFS" so I would have to assume it's deliberate. Is there a > reason for these references, or should they all be removed?
I looked at the referenced packages and have a couple of comments: 1) Surely you were able to tell that these were intentionally left in the book, especially considering how the text next to it says "(built in LFS)". Right? 2) Surely you agree that it needs to be there, considering that a DB is required and if there were no mention of Berkeley, users would think that they *had* to install GDBM. Right? I'm not sure I understand what the point of your message was. Help me out here. Are you trying to say with "Is there a reason for these references" that you don't understand why the references are there? Are you saying the text needs to be reworded so that it is more clear that you should install BDB, if you did not do it in LFS? -- 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] 08:03:00 up 119 days, 17:27, 3 users, load average: 1.11, 0.55, 0.25 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
