Am 29.02.2012 23:49, schrieb Ken Moffat: > Perhaps I was a little too terse in that reply. Although we may > have put packages in 'build order' in the distant past (when we had > far fewer packages in the book), we've long-ago moved away from > that. Among other reasons is that package dependencies change > across versions - if the packages are in alphabetic order in the > chapters or sections (yes, I know some are still random), it makes > the book more manageable. OTOH, where there is a single recognised > build order (e.g. kde, last time I hurt myself by trying to build it > :) then I think we use that. > > If we don't move everything whenever dependencies change, it makes > keeping the wiki pages in order a bit more feasible. Unfortunately, > I have to persuade my fellow editors that wiki pages are worth > creating for new packages ;) > > My own build order (using .xinitrc, not gdm and hence not PAM) for > "enough of gnome to build the rest" on my non-accelerated-video > machines is still somewhere at linuxfromscratch.org/~ken/ > > ĸen Thanks for the reply. I like LFS and BLFS. I have built both several times in the past. I will give more time and once the gnome-3 instructions are ok to most people on the list I will do it again.
I liked the idea of a build order because in the past I had the following problem several times: An early package has optional depencencies which did not seem important at that time. So I did not install it. Some 50-60 packages later something is not compiling. Finally after lots of investiation the optional package once omitted is at fault. => all packages in between are not compiled with a package which turned out to be more important than expected. what is working and what is not; what has to be redone or shall I start all over again ? How do projects like fedora / suse /debian tackle this problem ? Olaf -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
