On Sat, Dec 15, at 01:26 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > 2007/12/15, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The major thing that makes LFS a bit easier to maintain is the fact that > > there are only about 50 packages in LFS vs about 300 in BLFS. > > Not only that. LFS has no options, and BLFS has a lot of them. E.g., > on (now commented out) Xfce page, one can start the build with or > without HAL and policy-kit. Thus, strictly speaking, an editor has to > test both possibilities and provide instructions for both of them > (i.e., show how to mount removable volumes with the correct options > and how to shut down the system - I did this only in one case, because > for me HAL integration is broken beyond repair when mounting removable > media and because policy-kit is not in the book). That's a lot more > work than in LFS. Adding a section about the configurations (i.e.: > actually used dependencies and actually passed ./configure switches) > tested by BLFS editors and known bugs in them would help. > Yes thats the truth. Example one. I spend much of my time yesterday to check the pdf generation in mutt.
Example two. I didn't check the --enable-exhaustive-tests in flac, when --disable-thorough-tests took me 8 sbu to complete thus the text in the flac page about "up to 300 SBUs) and use about 375 MB of disk space" is inaccurate. -- http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/Hacking -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
