Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:44:33PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: >> On 11/4/2011 1:14 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Besides, building LFS/BLFS *is* programming. You still go through an >>> edit, build, check process. The output of a programming process is not >>> always executable code. >> Not at all trying to argue, but for the sake of discussion I think it is >> a stretch to say that writing a book (with insertion of XML markup) is >> programming. >> >> <para>Lots of nice text describing anything, could even be fictional >> material as well.</para> >> >> The above (in my opinion) hardly qualifies as "programming". However, it >> matters not where each package is located, as long as it is in the TOC, >> it is easy to find. :-) >> > Totally agree. Also pkg-config, like cmake, is a tool used in > building. Mind you, things like nasm, gcc-3 (almost certainly now > obsolete), perl modules, python modules, and (arguably) Python > itself are mainly in the book because they are build dependencies.
Some of us are programmers. Many packages are there to support programming per se. For example, Qt is not there just for KDE. It is a valuable development library in it's own right. I agree with removing gcc3. > longindex.html good, index.html prone to causing disagreement :-) Agree. But I think discussion is good. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
