Robert Daniels wrote: > I feel these are things we should definitely integrate from diy-linux. > The new build method is very promising, and will be very helpful for > the future when everyone expects their OS to be 64 bit.
64-bit is already possible with LFS via the jh branch, it is rendered here: http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-JH/ However that only allows for 64-bit from a 64-bit host (or kernel at least). The new build method at DIY you mention handles more possibilities, so yes, you're right, there are things about it that should be considered. > The way package management is handled is also something we should learn > from. PM is allowed for, even encourages, but is not required. I feel > this is an important point. PM should not be mandated, users should be > able to choose a package management system, or none at all. > > Adding package management would not turn LFS into a distro, if the > builder is given a choice. Instead, I think with a scheme like this, > LFS could evolve from a book on how to build your own linux system into > a book on how to build your own linux distro. And this is really 'Your > Distro, Your Rules." Generally agreed. But all these things are items to consider in more detail after Gerard's suggestions about re-organization and the general future of LFS and all its related projects are discussed. I have a few comments to make on that subject but am waiting to hear what others think first. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
