>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:17:48 +0100
>Matt Burgess <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well-behaved/correctly packaged projects should have no need for
> those packages to be installed.
And therein lies the rub.
Should LFS (base version) be built to handle only well-behaved stuff, or
should it be built to also withstand a messed up package here and there?
And to immediately give my opinion: I think LFS should contain
everything to enable building and rebuilding packages a user may want
to install later on. I believe that moving auto* stuff to BLFS would
only needlessly prolong and possibly increase the pain of having to hunt
down the dependencies for packages a user may want to install.
Only somewhat related to previous, I also believe LFS could use a
package for human networking. It is true that a ftp client is
installed, but I have not had much luck in using it. I was only able to
access the contents of some FTP servers, while others kept returning
errors. I think the error code I got was 500. When I first built my LFS,
I worked around this problem by copying the lynx executable from the LFS
live disk I used as my base system.
I am fully aware that similar proposals have been floated and rejected
previously. The reasons for rejection are understandable and I
ultimately concur with the decision to not include such a software
package in LFS. But the fact still remains that a text web browser
would be a nice addition. If maybe a little over-the-top for the base
system.
--
You don't need an AI for a robot uprising.
Humans will do just fine.
--Skynet
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
