On 03/05/2012 11:33 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > >> My question is, if the xc directory is a carryover and unnecessary for >> building X, why reinvent the wheel? A working directory is already >> mentioned in LFS. Again, it's by no means a big issue. It just seems >> more consistent and clearer to omit xc from the documentation. > I use /usr/src/xc to group the Xorg sources together. I have 248 > directories in /usr/src right now and 17 in /usr/src/xc. When I'm > working on xorg, it's convenient. > > It's also convenient to group files for things like kde, trinity, or gnome. > > You do not have to use our recommendations or course, but there's a lot > implied in the book that is the result of many years of experience. > > -- Bruce
Indeed, I saw your earlier response and appreciate both replies. I understand your logic and am not knocking your method. My strong guess is you're far more knowledgeable in this than me. Although I build in /sources, I put packages and patches in /sources/packages and /sources/patches respectively. I install using my own scripts. They're somewhat clunky and I'm always refining them, but they work well for me. I definitely use the script detailed in "Introduction to Xorg-7.6-2" and learned much from it. I should also say I consider the LFS/BLFS documentation quite good. My only point is xc appears unnecessary and prompts the question why. But I'm not waging a crusade over it. I've nuked xc from my steps/scripts, but if it stays in the documentation I'm OK with that. Not a problem. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
